Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments

Smt. Tarabai Shivlal Pardeshi Deceased, by Heirs and L.Rs. and ors. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR299; 2001(1)BomCR89

A.M. Khanvilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 has been filed by the legal heirs of the original landlord taking exception to the decision of the Extra-Judicial District Judge, dated 4th December, 1986 in Civil Appeal No. 851 of 1984.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present petition are that, the respondent was inducted in the premises consisting of a block of three rooms on the first floor at House No. 97, Mangalwar Peth, Pune 411 011, by the landlord pursuant to lease deed Exh. 54 dated 12-6-1967 at the monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. It is stated that the respondent was in arrears for a period from 1-5-1975 onwards, for which, landlords issued demand notice on 17th May, 1976 (Exh. 64). It is the case of the landlords that the said notice was duly received by the respondent on 21st May, 1976. This is, however, disputed and the finding of the courts below is that the said notice was registered on 23rd May, 1976 and received thereafter. Both the courts below have concu...

J.K. Holdings Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals filed by the assessee-trust pertain to asst. yrs.1989-90 to 1991-92. As these appeals involve common issue, we propose to dispose of the same by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The only issue raised before us is whether interest income earned by the assessee-trust is assessable under the head 'business income' and taxable at the maximum marginal rate.2. The facts of the case revolve in a narrow compass. The assessee is a private trust. The assessee collected deposits from the beneficiaries of the trust, family members of the beneficiaries and family friends and relatives. The amount collected invested in the concerns in which the family members of the beneficiaries are partners. The trust paid interest on the amounts deposited with them and also earned interest on the investments made. The difference between the interest paid and interest earned constituted the income of the assessee-trust after meeting expenditure towards salary to staff, HRA, bank ...

Shantaram Balya Sankhe and ors. Vs. Kaliram Gajanan Sankhe and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)640; (2001)1BOMLR640

Dr. Pratibha Upasaal, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/original accused, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 16th January, 1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Palghar, under Sections 447, 452, 427, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This order of issuance of process was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palghar, against the present petitioners/accused, after taking cognizance of the complaint dated 16th January. 1993, filed by the complainant/Respondent No. 1 herein-Kali ram Gajanan Sankhe.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated to appreciate the controversy involved, are as follows :Petitioner No.1/Shantaram Balya Sankhe. at the relevant time, was Sarpanch, Petitioner No. 2/Khanderao Chintaman Pimpale was Upa-Sarpanch and petitioner Nos. 3 to 15 were members/office-bearers of the Grampanchayat, Village Kolwade, Taluka Palghar. Dist. Thane.3. As per the averments made by the ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]247ITR448(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in limiting' the scope of determination of undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the material found during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : On September 28, 1995, the premises of the assesses were searched. Thereafter, the assessee filed his return declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 10,54,383 for the block period 1984-1996. On the basis of the materialfound during the search, the Assessing Officer finalised the assessment on September 30, 1996, on a total undisclosed income of Rs. 24,66,850 for the above block period. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal, who reduced the income to Rs. 13,32,120 as against the declared income of Rs. 10,54,383. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained gold ornaments, investment...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)432

S.H. Kapadia, J.The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in limiting the scope of determination of undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the material found during the course of search under section 132 of the Act.2. The brief facts giving raise to this appeal are as follows:On 28-9-1995, the premises of the assessee was searched. Thereafter, the assessee filed his return declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 10,54,383 for the block period 1984-1996. On the basis of material found during the search, the assessing officer finalised the assessment on 30-9-1996, on total undisclosed income of Rs. 24,66,850 for the above block period. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal, who reduced the income to Rs. 13,32,120 as against the declared income of Rs. 10,54,383. The addition made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained gold ornaments, investment in bungalow and unexplained ...

J.K. Holdings Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Mumbai)649

ORDERD. Manmoham, J.M.These appeals filed by the assessee-trust pertain to assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92. As these appeals involve common issue, we propose to dispose of the same by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The only issue raised before us is whether interest income earned by the assessee-trust is assessable under the head 'business income' and taxable at the maximum marginal rate.2. The facts of the case revolve in a narrow compass. The assessee is a private trust. The assessee collected deposits from the beneficiaries of the trust, family members of the beneficiaries and family friends and relatives. The amount collected' invested in the concerns in which the family members of the beneficiaries are partners. The trust paid interest on the amounts deposited with them and also earned interest on the investments made. The difference between the interest paid and interest earned constituted the income of the assessee-trust after meeting expenditure towards s...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kalyani Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT254Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The department has made this reference application under Section 35G(1) of Central Excise Act praying for "whether modvat credit is admissible on Ramming mass under rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules", the CEGAT Order No. 4571/97/WZB dated 13-10-1997 allowing credit in respect of ramming mass needs to be set aside.2. The ground on which the reference application is made are that the Tribunal has not considered the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd v.CCE 1995 (77) E.L.T. 298 under which the appellate Tribunal has referred the question of law regarding the admissibility of Modvat credit under rule 57A on ramming mass to the High Court. The Tribunal ought to have denied the Modvat credit, as it is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, since the matter had been referred to the High Court.3. Perused the bench order referred above and the reference application, and also Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The relief sought for is not proper and correc...

Futura Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC636Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal against yet another order of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva demanding duty from the appellant and imposing penalty on him on his finding that Modvat credit was availed of goods exported by it, thus contravening the condition contained in Notification 203/92. We have in a number of earlier occasions set aside such orders on the ground that they did not indicate either the material on the basis on which it was alleged that it has been taken or did not indicate any material to justify invoking the extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. We had noted that the export had already been allowed by giving the benefit of the notification without any objection on the part of the Department and in these circumstances, there have to be clearly specific reasons for invoking the extended period and also material to show on the basis on which credit was taken.2. Here too there is total absence of any such material. The de...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kalyani Steel

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT846Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This reference application is filed by the department under section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act praying for making a reference to the High Court of the following questions namely. 1. Whether the interpretation of rule 57A made by the CEGAT Bench Order Nos. 1364 to 1366/97 WRB dated 27-3-97 in E/155, 156 & 935/96 Bom of the same parties, for extending the Modvat benefit for the binding materials is not covered either by Rule 57A or 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is just, proper and correct. 2. Whether the declaration filed under Rule 57T for filing capital goods credit under Rule 57Q can be considered as declaration filed under Rule 57G(i) for claiming benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules? 2. The order-in-original of Sr. no. 73,90,nil/CX/95 dated 31-10-1995, 30-11-1995 and 29-1-1996 of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Pune-II was challenged by Kalyani Steels Ltd. which ended with the bench order referred above.3. The ground...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. N.T.V. Multiwall Paper Bag Co. P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT747Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs permitting a consignment of paper claimed by its importer to be waste on mutilation.2. We have heard the Departmental Representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. There are two grounds raised in the appeal. The first ground is that the goods were not mutilated. The appeal does not indicate the reasons why such mutilations permitted in the importer's premises were not carried out. This however is no ground for setting aside the Collector's order, especially when the circumstances for not carrying out mutilation are clear. The Collector's order is clear that on mutilation of the goods, duty shall be levied on the goods as waste.This is under Section 24 of the Act that he has applied. The department however, no doubt would be at liberty to pursue with the confiscation according to law, subject to the condition that mutilation ordered were not done. However, as we have said, this is no ground for fi...