Mumbai Court November 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pankaj Ravindra Phalak, Minor, Through Guardian Father Vs. Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom337b; 2001(1)BomCR815; (2001)1BOMLR724; 2001(1)MhLj182
B. H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner, a minor, who has been represented through his father, has brought in question the punishment order dated 26th July, 2000 passed by the respondent Board. The Board has submitted the original file of inquiry before us and we have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at length. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to decide the petition finally, even in the absence of the return of respondent Board. 2. The petitioner appeared for S.S.C. examination and secured 80.53% marks in the year 1998. In due course he appeared for the H.S.C. examination and his results were declared as 'passed'. He had secured 84.17% marks in the said examinations held in February/March, 2000. He received a notice dated 22nd May, 2000 from the Board calling him for an inquiry to be held on 29th May, 2000 at Nasik. Pursuant to theinquiry the impugned order of punishment has been passed. 3. Shri Barlinge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Indo Oceanic Shipping Co. Ltd., ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj685
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The above group of References deal with common question of law which has been referred by the Tribunal to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at instance of the revenue.Whether the salary payable to the floating staff for the period of employment outside India should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40A(5)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. For the sake of brevity the facts in Income Tax Reference No. 444 of 1995 are taken into consideration.3. The assessee - M/s Indo Oceanic Shipping Company Ltd. is a limited company. While computing the amount to be disallowed under the above provision, the AO included the salary payable to the floating staff of an Indian Vessel for a period of employment outside India in respect of the Assessment Year 1978-79, The AO considered the International Law and came to the conclusion that so long as the Indian Flag was flying on the ship, the said Ship was considered to be Indian Territory ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Indo Oceanic Shipping Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Bom)404; [2001]247ITR247(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The above group of References deal with common question of law which has been referred by the Tribunal to this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at Instance of the revenue.Whether the salary payable to the floating staff for the period of employment outside India should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance under section 40A(5)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. For the sake of brevity the facts in Income Tax Reference No. 444 of 1995 are taken into consideration.3. The assessee-M/s. Indo Oceanic Shipping Company Ltd. is a Limited Company. While computing the amount to be disallowed under the above provision, the A.O. included the salary payable to the floating staff of an Indian Vessel for a period of employment outside India in respect of the Assessment Year 1978-79. The A.O. considered the International Law and came to the conclusion that so long as the Indian Flag was flying on the Ship, the said Ship was considered to be Indian Territor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Avtar Singh Wadhwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Bom)414; [2001]247ITR260(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to us under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for opinion at the instance of the Department : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary received by the assessee from the Shipping Corporation of India-employer during the period of account relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 was not taxable in India ?' 2. The assessment for 1974-75 was completed on August 28, 1975, by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, at the instance of the assessee-employee, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, set aside the assessment order holding that the assessee was a non-resident. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, however, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the tax liability in the light of the contract of employment as per Section 5(2)(b) and Section 9(l)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. After the remand, the Assessing Officer by his ...
Devji Bawa Velari Vs. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)928; 2001BomCR(Cri)358; (2001)1BOMLR618; 2001(1)MhLj505
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, the father of one Deepak Devji Velari (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), has challenged the detention order passed by Shri R.H. Mendonca. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai dated 12.11.1999 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A.).2. Although diverse contentions have been raised while assailing the detention order, however, after considering the arguments we find that the present petition should succeed on the sole ground of non-supply of relevant document to the detenu impairing his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation. Hence we have not burdened our judgment with the other contentions.3. The relevant facts for adjudicating the point in issue are that the impugned detention order was passed o...
Sambhav Tirth Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Viswamangal Housing Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR849
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This matter was on board earlier also when Counsel for the plaintiffs appealed for striking off the defence of the defendant No. 1 under Order XXXIX, Rule 11 of C.P.C. as per Bombay Amendment for non-compliance to the order of the Supreme Court dated 6-11-1992 in Special Leave Appeal No. 1301 of 1992 by which the Supreme Court had directed the defendant No. 1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 5.25,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master within six weeks from the date of the order and also to furnish the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000/- and to keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the suit is disposed of.2. Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that even though this order is passed in 1992 and specific period for compliance was given by the Supreme Court, the defendant No. 1 has not till this date complied with any of these conditions and therefore under Order XXXIX, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Bombay Amendment, defence of the defendant No. 1 should be struck off.3. This oral r...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ghanshyam K. Zaveri and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)276; 2001CriLJ1629
ORDERS.S. Parkar, J.1. This revision-application is filed by the State against the order of discharge of the respondents-accused passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate's 6th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 145/S/88 on 29th July, 1993.2. This revision application arises from the following facts :The respondents were tried for offence under Section 18(c) read with punishing Section 27 and Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On the basis of the information received by the Drug Inspector that M/s. Godama Laboratories, Malad (W), Bombay 400 064 was manufacturing for sale and selling tablets called 'Dolmiran' at their factory premises without permission or licence as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, he visited the premises of M/s. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. on 27/6/1985 and made enquiry regarding the sale and purchase of the said tablets and prohibited the sale of 100 boxes of the said drug. Complaint was lodged on 3-7-1985 under Section 8(c) ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC493
1. This application arises out of the orders of the Tribunal disposing of an appeal and, later, an application for rectification of mistake in the order disposing of the appeal.2. The question before the Tribunal in the appeal was whether the benefit of notification would be available to glassware such as plates and bowls, which were also capable of being used in oven. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellant Commissioner that the fact that these articles could be used for baking in an oven (being able to withstand heat rendered them incapable to be considered tableware, and so ineligible for the exemption contained in the notification for specified tableware of glass. An application was filed alleging mistake in his order on the ground that the Tribunal had not considered another order passed by the Bench D in Delhi, which took a contrary view. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that this order had not been brought to its notice.3. To the extent t...
Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT627Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes Ltd. (hereafter called as DRTL) imported goods described as "alpha pinene 85% (cyclo terpene)" claiming classification thereof under subheading 2902.19. The value declared by them was US $ 350 PMT C&F. A show cause notice was issued alleging classification under heading 38.05, also alleging under valuation and proposing revaluation at US $ 395 PMT. After hearing the importers the Deputy Commissioner passed orders dated 13-3-2000 classifying the products under 3805.90 and enhancing the value. DRTL then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter on the paucity of findings by the lower authority. Orders in de novo proceedings were passed on 13-3-2000 arriving at the same decision as was earlier arrived at by the first adjudicating authority. The importers again filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal insofar as it related to the classification upholding the claim of sub-heading 2902.19 but ma...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Power Pack
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC540
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under 73,84 and 85 of Central Excise tariff. The appellant availed at the relevant time the exemption Notification 175/86. Two notices were issued in September and October 1992 demanding duty on the goods cleared by the appellant in July and September, 1992. The charges in the notices were this. Under the notification, where a manufacture manufactures goods classifiable in two separate chapters of the tariff, as is the case with the appellant, exemption is only availed to goods falling within one chapter of clearances up Rs. 20 lakhs, within the first clearance of Rs. 30 lakhs. It was alleged that this condition had not been followed.2. The Assistant Collector adjudicating on the notice, held that the duty had been rightly demanded on clearances exceeding an aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs including in that Rs. 20 lakhs exemption for one clearance of goods falling in one chapter including those cleared on paymen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »