Mumbai Court June 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.
Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat and ors. Vs. Baban Maruti Barate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)69; (2001)4BOMLR654; 2001CriLJ295; 2000(4)MhLj861
Pratibha Upsani, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/original accused, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur in R.C.C. No. 97 of 1989, under Section 403, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The main ground on which the order of issuance of process is assailed, is that the complaint dated 19th April, 1989 filed by respondent No. 1/original complainant-Baban Maruti Barate, is not accompanied by a list of witnesses, nor any list of documents is annexed to the complaint.3. The complaint is filed by the complainant accusing the petitioners of falsification of records in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1133, B/1(1160) at Village Mauje, Pandharpur and also Survey No. 482. The petitioners are also accused of transferring this land in the name of the 1st petitioner and falsification of accounts and embezzlement of funds collected for constructing Dharmashala.4. The cas...
Aditya Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: 2002(142)ELT46(Bom)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of judgment and order dated 15th October 1999 passed by CEGAT in Appeal No. CD(Bom.)-218,286/86 .2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :The petitioners are, inter alia, Exporters of various types of yarn. On 14th August 1985, a show cause notice was issued by the Customs authorities alleging misdeclaration by the petitioners with regard to 754 cartons of polyester yarn carted by the petitioners under seven shipping bills for exports. At that stage, samples were drawn. After drawing samples, several statements of various functionaries of the petitioners came to be recorded. On the basis of the said statement, a show cause notice alleging misdeclaration with regard to the goods came to be issued. By an order in adjudication passed on 20th December 1985, the goods came to be confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fin...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: [2000]256ITR81(Bom)
1. Admit. 2. Respondents waive service. 3. Since a short point is involved, the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission. Two questions have been raised in this appeal, which are as follows : '(a) Whether non-refundable deposits collected by the Assessee-society, out of the sugarcane purchase price payable to the canegrowers, are trading receipts of the assessee-society (b) Whether interest on such non-refundable deposits, are trading receipts of the assessee-society ?' 4. On May 4, 2000, the Division Bench of this court (to which one of us, Kapadia J. is a party) in Income-tax Reference No. 449 of 1995 CIT v. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. : [2000]245ITR498(Bom) has taken the view that the non-refundable deposit (NRD) constituted trading receipts of the assessee. 5. In view of the above judgment, both the above questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.A. Rosemann
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR709; [2000]245ITR716(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether living allowance paid to a foreign technician constituted income of the assessee 2. The assessee was a German citizen. He was a regular employee of a German company. The German company had entered into a technical assistance agreement with Tata Electric Company, Bombay. Pursuant to the said agreement, the assessee was deputed to India to do the work of commissioning of cables. This was during the period April 2, 1987, to June 17, 1987, and also during the period October 8, 1987, to March 31, 1988. During this period in Bombay, he stayed in a hotel. His total expenses, amounting to Rs. 3.30 lakhs, were reimbursed by Tata Electric Company. The question before us, therefore, is : whether the said amount is taxable as income of the assessee under the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was a regular employee of Tata Electric Company. That, during the aforestated period, the place of ...
Shri Sampat Pandurang Ghadge Vs. Shri Ramchandra Maruti Sawant and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR593a
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 has been filed by the original opponent No. 2 who claims to be the tenant in respect of suit lands situate at village Degaon, Taluka Satara. The proceedings commenced with the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for a declaration that they are the tenants in respect of the suit lands. The tenancy Awal Karkun, Satara by judgment and order dated 13.12.1984 was pleased to allow the said application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and declared that they were the tenants in respect of suit lands including Survey No. 214/1 since prior to 1.4.1957 for all purposes and intent of the Tenancy Act. This judgment and order was taken exception to by the petitioner herein who was opponent No. 2 in the original application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara, Sub-division Satara. The Appellate Authority after considering the rival contentions a...
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mumbai)220
ORDERPradeep Parikh, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27-1-1997, and pertains to the financial year 1992-93. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal revolves around the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, TDS, Thane, under section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby a demand of Rs. 2,49,305 has been raised against the assessee, being short deduction of tax at source from salaries of certain employees.2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing cement. For the assessment year 1993-94 i.e. during the financial year 1992-93 the assessee had paid salaries to its employees and had deducted tax at source on the basis of estimated incomes of the respective employees. Survey operations were carried out under section 113A of the Act on 5-12-1994, at the business premises of the assessee. In the course of survey proceedings, it w...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L.A. Rosemann
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Bom)509; [2000]111TAXMAN507(Bom)
ORDERKapadia, J.The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether living allowance paid to a foreign technician constituted income of the assessee 2. The assessee was a German citizen. He was a regular employee of a German company. The German company had entered into a technical assistance agreement with Tata Electric Co., Bombay. Pursuant to the said agreement, the assessee was deputed to India to do the work of commissioning of cables. This was during the period 2-4-1987 to 17-6-1987 and also during the period 8-10-1987 to 31-3-1988. During this period in Bombay, he stayed in a hotel. His hotel expenses, amounting to Rs. 3.30 lakhs, were reimbursed by Tata Electric Co. The question before us, therefore, is: whether the said amount is taxable as income of the assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessing officer held that the assessee was a regular employee of Tata Electric Co. That, during the aforestated period...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elbee Services P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR109(Bom)
1. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing courier services. The assessee made an application under Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking directions from the Assessing Officer to decide as to what portion of remittance made to Universal Parcel Services Worldwide Forwarding Inc., a non-resident company, would constitute income chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the said non-resident company. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in the present matter, on facts, no part of the operations were carried out by the non-resident company in India and, accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the Department. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal is misconceived. No substantial question of law is raised in this appeal. It is well settled that the orders passed unde...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR723(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assesses against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under Section 23(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under Section 23(1)(b) 2. The facts giving' rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows : The assessee, during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1992-93, purchased premises in the building known as 'Mahendra Towers' vide sale deed dated June 28, 1991. The said premises were let out to Raymond Woollen Mills Limited from October 1, 1991, The lessee agreed to deposit an amount as a security deposit for the due performance of the lease. The assessee was not to pay any interest on the security deposit to the lessees. The premises are covered by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The Asses...
Avadhut Harihar Dharke Vs. Baban Buva Bhutkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR302; 2000(4)BomCR789
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. The short question which needs to be examined in this case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for possession on the ground of section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act').2. The admitted facts are that the, premises were let out to the petitioner on August 15, 1957. The petitioner enjoyed the said premises as a monthly tenant along with his family members, which inter alia, consisted of his sister Tulsabai. However, the sister got married in the year 1960 and since then she started living along with her husband in the suit premises along withpetitioner. It is stated by the respondent-plaintiff that the petitioner secured alternate accommodation and started living in the said accommodation since January 1, 1979. The respondent plaintiff, in the circumstances, issued notice to the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »