Mumbai Court February 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.
Kantilal Manilal Vyas Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC356Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs ordering confiscation under Section 121 of the Act of Rs. 12 lakhs seized from the possession of the appellant and imposing on him and penalty under Section 112 of the Act.2. We have heard the advocate for the appellant and the departmental representative.3. The appellant was manager of M/s Rajesh Kumar Singh, a firm of angadias when a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs was seized from his possession by the officers of the department. The only evidence on which the Addl.Collector has relied on in coming to his conclusion that the money seized from the appellant is the sale proceeds of smuggled goods and the contention of the statement of the appellant, which was recorded on 29.10.1990 and retracted on 5.11.1990. Vyas says that the money was sent to him by Bharatbhai through 'Hawala' (this, it was explained to us, in Gujarati signifies transaction relating to transfer of money) in the...
Ashok Mahansing Bajaj H.U.F. Vs. Elegant Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR242; 2000(3)BomCR169; (2000)1BOMLR968; 2000(2)MhLj855
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The plaintiff has taken out this summons for judgment praying that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendants in this suit for a sum of Rs. 1,34,498.61 and for further interest on Rs. 1,20,000/- at the rate of 18% or such other rate this Court may deem fit and proper from filling of the suit till payment and or realisation and for costs of the suit.2. The summary suit filed by the plaintiff seeking judgment and decree against the defendants for the aforesaid amount is based on the facts which may be narrated in short to appreciate the controversy between the parties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 on 18-8-1997 for valuable consideration drew three bills of exchange for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 45.000/- and Rs. 23,000/ directing thereby the defendant No. 2 to pay to the plaintiff or order at Mumbai an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- on demand. The said bills of exchange were accepted by the defendant No. 2 and delivered to th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR84(Bom)
1. Two points arise for consideration in this appeal.2. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the stamp duty paid on debenture issue was an allowable item of deduction under section 35D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 35D deals with amortisation of certain preliminary expenses. Under section 35D(1) where an assessee, being an Indian company, incurs, after March 31, 1970, expenditure specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 35D before the commencement of his business, or after the commencement of his business, in connection with the extension of his industrial undertaking, the assessee shall be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of the ten successive previous years beginning with the previous year in which the business commences or, the previous year in which the extension of the industrial undertaking is completed. Section 35D(2) enlists the expenditure in respect of which deduction can be claimed by the assessee. Sect...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.J. Shah and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR671(Bom)
1. Search and seizure action was taken under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pursuant to which loose sheets of paper came to be detected in the form of A3, A4 and A6. The Assessing Officer found that the said loose sheets indicated undisclosed sales for three months from September 3, 1996, to December 4, 1996, and on that basis he estimated undisclosed profit of Rs. 3.40 crores.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. On facts, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had estimated the turnover on a notional basis for the entire block period. The Tribunal found that according to the assessee the peak investment was of Rs. 40,14,806 which was never disputed by the departmental representative. The saidpeak investment was worked out on the basis of A3, A4 and A6. The figures mentioned in A5, A4 and A6 were only incoming and outgoing cash transactions and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the basis of the said three files the...
Karimjee Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Bom)527; [2000]246ITR545(Bom)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee seeking to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated May 28, 1999, in Income-tax Appeal No. 2915/Bom of 1991 in respect of the assessment year 1987-88.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :In the accounting year 1986-87, the assessee exported goods out of India. It was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC. It was also required to create a reserve to the extent of deduction claimed under the said section. The assessee created a reserve of Rs. 60,90,000 and claimed deduction thereof. However, due to increase in the total income computed by the Assessing Officer, the amount of profit also increased and deduction was computed and allowed at a higher amount of Rs. 70,08,819. On scrutiny of the records, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice that deduction of Rs. 70,08,819 was higher than the reserve created of Rs. 60,90,000 and the assessee could not have been allowed deduction of more than the amount of Rs. 60,90,00...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rhone Poulenc Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)45; [2000]246ITR699(Bom)
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dated February 1, 1999.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows :The respondent-company is a pharmaceutical company. It took over the assets of the Indian branch of May and Baker Limited, U. K. on January 1, 1975. In the original returns for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the respondent did not claim depreciation on the assets of the Indian branch. However, for the assessment year 1978-79, it claimed depreciation on the original cost of the assets which were taken over by it and this depreciation was claimed on the original cost and not on the written down value. Subsequently, revised returns were filed for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, whereby the respondent claimed depreciation on the original cost of the assets. After filing of the revised returns for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the U. K. company entered into a settlement with the Central B...
Upendra Ramanlal Mehta and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR787]; (2000)IILLJ111Bom
1. The petition is filed challenging the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act brought in by the State of Maharashtra in form of Maharashtra Act No. XXII of 1999. By this amending Act the State wanted to include Clause No. 5 in Section 3 as well as to amend Clause 18 of Section 3. Proposed amendments are as under:(a) for Clause (5), the following clause shall be substituted namely: '(5) 'employee', in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defined in Clause (13) of Section 3 of the Bombay Act, and in any other case means a workman as defined in Clause(s) of Section 2 of the Central Act, and a sales promotion employee as defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.' (b) for Clause (18), the following clause shall be substituted, namely: '(18) words and expressions used in this Act and not defined therein, but defined in the Bombay Act or as the case may be, the Sales P...
Mukund Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC338Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case, the question involved is, whether lubricating oil is eligible for modvat credit or not. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows: I have considered the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal, the findings of the adjudicating authority and the law on the subject. I find that the criteria for admissibility for modvat credit is that inputs should be essential for manufacture of certain final product whether they are used directly or indirectly used irrespective they are visible or not or lost in the process. Hence, lubricants and grease do not qualify for modvat, The same is also held by the Hon'ble CEGAT in the case of Kanoria Sugar and General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and reject the appeal as untenable under the law.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has sought to follow the Judgment of the CEGAT in Kanoria Sugar & General Manufacturing Co. Ltd...
U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. M/S. Three Circles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR608; 2000(3)BomCR360; (2000)3BOMLR430; 2000(3)MhLj730
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal under section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and. order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th October 1994 refusing to set aside an Arbitration Award No. 166 of 1989 dated 20th October 1989.2. Some time in 1983, the appellant had floated tenders for construction of 14,000 M.T. cold storage at Vashi, New Mumbai. The respondent, a construction firm, had tendered for the work and was awarded the contract for the said construction work. The contract was signed some time in 1984. Some time during the year 1986, disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent filed Arbitration Suit No. 3219 of 1986 under the Act for appointment of an arbitrator. There was protracted litigation between the parties which even went to the Supreme Court and came back. We are not concerned with the details of the said litigation except that as a result of certain directions ...
Saleem Abdul Majid Mujawar and Others Vs. Smt. Maria Francisca D'Souza ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALLMR585; 2000(4)BomCR738
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. If is the contention of the petitioners that the Executing Court has passed the impugned order in contravention of section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure in as much as that the Executing Court has totally ignored the proviso to section 51 of C.P.C. which clearly requires the Court to pass the reasoned order before issuance of warrant of arrest and detention of the judgment debtor. It is also the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that before proceeding with the execution of a decree against the legal representatives of the judgment debtor, it is necessary to ascertain the extent of liability of the legal representatives of the judgment debtor.2. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the Executing Court has passed the impugned order merely after observing that the petitioners here in who are the judgment debtor were absent and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »