Mumbai Court December 2000 Judgments
ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-2000
Reported in: (2002)81ITD422(Mum.)
1. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against order of CIT(A) dated 11-10-1999. The first grievance of the assessee-company is that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer and in rejecting the claim of assessee-company for deduction of sum of Rs. 3,78,80,936 under Section 80HHC on irrelevant and incogent grounds. In this regards, the following further arguments have been given in the grounds of appeal: 2. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the scheme of Section 80HHC of the Act which was amended from the assessment year 1992-93 to give boost to the exports of the Country by giving incentives to the Exporters. The learned CIT(A) failed to carry out the directions of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. 196 ITR 188 as to the manner in which the incentive provisions are to be interpreted. 3. The CIT(A) also erred in not considering the fact that provisions of Section 80HHC as they apply to holder of Export House Certificate or Trading House Certifica...
Tag this Judgment!ipca Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Mumbai)991
ORDERJaidev, AM.This is the appeal filed by the assessee against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11-10-1999. The first grievance of the assessee-company is that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of assessing officer and in rejecting the claim of assessee-company for deduction of sum of Rs. 3,78,80,936 under section 80HHC on irrelevant and in cogent grounds. In this regard, the following further arguments have been given in the grounds of appeal :'2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scheme of section 80HHC of the Act which was amended from the assessment year 1992-93 to give boost to the exports of the country by giving incentives to the exporters. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to carry out the directions of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT : [1992]196ITR188(SC) as to the manner in which the incentive provisions are to be interpreted.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the fact th...
Tag this Judgment!Kewat Quality Tex. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT785Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeals are against the order of the Collector confirming the demand for duty issued to Kewat Quality Tex P. Ltd. and imposing penalty on it and on Kalpana Kanudawala, excise clerk and confiscating the land, building, machinery etc. of the mill and permitting it to redeem them on payment of fine.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. Mr. Ma-yur Shroff, advocate, who was present in court, says that although his firm was earlier representing the appellant, it had ceased to do so. I have read the memorandum of appeal and other papers and heard the departmental representative.3. The Commissioner finds that the appellant manipulated the gate passes relating to the clearance of the goods, with the result that different copies of the gate passes showed different amount of duty paid, with a view to misleading the authorities. This finding is not squarely attacked in the appeal. While it contains various grounds such as lack of application of mind etc., there is no...
Tag this Judgment!Phoolchand K. JaIn and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC205
1. The brief facts of the case are that the officers of Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate, Mumbai searched the premises of M/s. K.K. Chains in Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai on 19.8.97.During the course of the search one Shri Harish B. Jain entered those premises. The person of Shri Harish Jain was searched by the Customs Officers resulting in the recovery of 11 foreign marked gold biscuits totally valued at Rs. 5,83,000. Since Shri Harish Jain could not produce licit document for the import/ possession of the 11 gold marked biscuits the same were seized. A statement was recorded from Shri Harish Jain under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the spot in which he deposed that his uncle Shri Shantilal L. Jain had given him the stated packet containing gold biscuits and he had asked him to deliver the same to Shri Phoolchand Jain of M/s. K.K. Chain. He deposed that his uncle had told that foreign gold biscuits were smuggled and same should be carried carefully....
Tag this Judgment!Mani D. Seervai ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through the Secretary M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Bom229; 2001(2)ALLMR444; 2001(2)BomCR566; (2001)1BOMLR676
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. In the above Writ Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the Third variation of Town Planning Scheme, being Santacruz Town Planning - II, which variation was notified on 8th July, 1998 and finally the same was sanctioned on 22nd September, 1999. 2. The brief backdrop of the case is that on 1st October, 1922 the Santacruz Town Planning - II Scheme came into force- At that time Dorabji Pestonji Seervai was the original owner of Plots 77-C and 78-B, admeasuring approximately 54,633 sq. yards. It appears that in the year 1944, by way of first variation to the said Scheme the said Dorabji Pestonji Seervai was allotted final Plot Nos. 94 and 83 in place of the original Plot Nos. 77-C and 77-B. In or about 1943. Plot No. 83 came to be sub-divided viz. Plot Nos. 83-A and 83-B. Plot No. 83-A admeasuring approximately 13,712 sq. mtrs. was sold to the Chinais and Plot No. 83-B admeasuring approximately 13,719 sq.mtrs. was retained by the said D. P. Seervai. 3. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Sharbat Chand JaIn Vs. Bank of India, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR590; (2001)2BOMLR130; (2001)ILLJ1655Bom; 2001(2)MhLj555
B. P. Singh, C. J.1. The Petitioner herein, an officer of Respondent No. 1 - Bank, has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-Bank to open the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the D.P.C. held in May, 1995 in respect of the Petitioner and to declare the result. He has also prayed for a declaration that the action of Respondent No. 1 in withholding the promotion of the Petitioner by adhering to sealed cover procedure, and initiating disciplinary proceeding by charge-sheet dated 15th January, 1998, is male fide, illegal and without any authority of law. The Petitioner has also prayed for consequential reliefs.2. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner joined the Respondent-Bank as a clerk in the year 1965, and, in due course, was promoted to the officer cadre. The Petitioner was granted promotions from time to time and in the year 1987, he was promoted to Scale IV, a senior management post. On 30th November, 1992, he was promoted to Scale V, a higher scale,...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Krishnanand Vernekar Vs. Gourawwabai Sharnappa Bukka and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR228; (2001)2BOMLR241; 2001(2)MhLj645
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the landlady challenging concurrent decisions of the two Courts below in dismissing the Regular Civil Suit No. 1313 of 1976 instituted by her before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, J. D.,Solapur. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30.1.1982 was pleased to dismiss the said suit, which order came to be confirmed by the Appellate Court III Additional District Judge, Solapur on 23.4.1987 in Civil Appeal No. 250 of 1982.2. The petitioner had filed suit for recovery of possession of the suit property consisting of two room and one shop along with sore situated In Municipal House No. 139 of CTS No. 3930 A,B,C. Shukrawar Peth, Solapur on the ground floor as described in the para 1 of the plaint. Although possession of the suit property was claimed on more than one ground under the Bombay Rent Act, however, before this Court, in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has confined the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Nicassio Corporation General Contractors Vs. the Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR421; 2001(2)BomCR582; (2001)2BOMLR744
B. P. Singh, C. J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The Petitioners, Nicassio Corporation 'General Contractors', have challenged the decision of the Standing Committee of Respondent No. 1, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. dated 21st July, 2000 accepting the recommendation of award of work to Respondent No. 5, M/s. MURTCO,Inc., whereby the Standing Committee of Respondent No. 1 - Corporation awarded to Respondent No. 5 the contract for the tender work in question, viz.. Rehabilitation of Sewer Lines by Pipe Bursting Method - Contract No. SO-CA-03. The decision of the Standing Committee has been challenged mainly on the ground that Respondent No. 5, M/s. MURTCO, Inc., failed to meet the eligibility criteria in the tender documents, particularly Clause 5.4 thereof, which required that to qualify for award of the contract the bidder should have, in the last five years up to 31st March, 1999. achieved in any two years a minimum annual financial tur...
Tag this Judgment!Petroleum Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR235]; (2001)ILLJ1211Bom
1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner is a union. It is representing the cause of 22 candidates, who are mentioned in Annexure 'A'. They were posted at the retail outlet at Bhulabhai Desai Road, which is known as COCO II Mumbai (Petrol Pump). The petitioners are praying that those who are listed in Exhibit 'A' be directed to be treated as regular employees of respondent No. 1 employed on regular basisand the benefits which are applicable to general employees of respondent No. 1 Indian Oil Corporation be given to them.3. It has been averred that they are carrying on work of permanent and perennial nature. They are not trainees. As such, though they are designated against the post of 'Trainee', no training of any kind is given to them. The respondents want to exploit the social and economic background and employthem only for a period of one year. They are discharging regular nature of work and they are appointed against clear and vacant post. It is, therefore, submitted that they should ...
Tag this Judgment!Vassant Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Madan V. Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR493; [2003]116CompCas172(Bom); [2004]50SCL705(Bom)
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is a company appeal by original respondents; under Section 483 of the Companies Act/ 1956 ; challenging the order dated September 30, 1994, passed by the single judge of this court in Company Petition No. 2-V of 1992 whereby the learned single judge of this court admitted the company petition and ordered to issue advertisement which was to be published on July 31, 1995, if in the intervening period the dispute was not settled between the parties. Needless to mention that the learned single judge by way of an interim arrangement appointed the parties themselves as receiver by rotation as is directed in the order.2. The facts of the case as alleged in the petition, in short are as under :3. The present appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the husband and wife whereas respondent Madan is the real younger brother of appellant No. 2 Umesh. This is sufficient to suggest that this is a business initiated by the family members.4. Initially both these brothers for service purpo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »