Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments

Rpg Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. By this application for the asst. yr. 1996-97, the assessee seeks stay of the disputed demand and a direction for refund of Rs. 19,43,000 recovered by the AO from the Standard Chartered Bank. We have heard the parties and perused the records.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee was occupying tenanted commercial premises of 4,460 sq. ft. area. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1996-97, the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 31,32,842, on repairs/renovation of the premises. The assessee was providing common pool services to various licencees. The costs incurred during the year including the cost of repairs and renovations of rented premises have been recovered by the assessee from the various licencees. Whereas the expenditure on repairs and renovations has been debited to the P&L a/c, the amounts recovered from the various licencees are credited to the P&L a/c. On making an assessment under Section 143(3), the AO issued the receipt...

Bisumal Nagraj Oswal (Jain) Vs. Kunda Ashok Shinde and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(86)FLR862]; (2000)IIILLJ1382Bom

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Applicants before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, were the 22 years old widow and a minor child of the deceased, who was 25 years old at the time of his accident on September 30, 1984. Their marriage had taken place in the year 1983. The deceased was survived by the widow and her two months child at the time of the accident. It was her case before the learned Commissioner that on the fateful day of September 30, 1984 the opponent came to their residence and took the deceased with him for work on a scooter. In the evening at 6 p.m., however, the opponent returned to her only to inform that her husband was no more alive as he had died on account of electric shock received by him in the premises of the temple which were being constructed. This news w.as perhaps a greater shock for the young lady. It appears that the body of the deceased was taken for medical treatment but it was in vain as the doctor had declared him dead. The funeral took place ...

Dilip Kumar J. JaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR223; 2001CriLJ7

Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original complainant Dilipkumar J. Jain, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th February, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 15 of 1993. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application of the complainant/petitioner herein, which he had filed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 1992, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, who had dismissed the complainant's complaint, which he had filed under sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows :The present petitioner had filed C.C. No. 18-S-92 against respondent No. 2/original accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In t...

Shri Sharad Pandharinath Mote Vs. Prakash Madhavrao Yadav and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR160

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29th October, 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune granting a decree to the plaintiff-appellant only in part in his Special Civil Suit No. 1604 of 1991. The principal prayers in that suit were rejected by the said decree and hence being aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.2. Mr. Vijay Patil and Miss Roshni Patil have appeared for the appellant and Mr. Ketkar and Mr. Khadapkar have appeared for the respondent No. 1.3. The above referred suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was concerning a house owned by the respondent No. 1 bearing No. 415 situated in Shukrawar Peth, Pune admeasuring about 131.3 sq. metres and consisting of ground + three floors. The case of the appellant is that sometimes in the first week of June, 1991 the 1st respondent had entered into an oral agreement to sell the said house to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-. It is his further case t...

Satappa Sharnappa Aute and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Shivram Mashalkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2001)ACC567

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The judgment and order dated 12th January, 1987, directing the present appellants (the original respondent Nos. 1 to 3), to pay to the respondent (the original applicant), a sum of Rs. 14,700/- towards compensation for the permanent disability, to the extent of fifty per cent, caused to him during the course of his employment with the appellants, is under challenge in the present first appeal filed by the appellants Under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. (The parties would be referred by me hereinafter as the appellant-employers and the respondent-employee).2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The respondent-employee, when he had filed the application for compensation, was 19 years young boy and was engaged for doing the labourer's job by the appellant-employers who are agriculturists, owning a crusher machine installed in their land. The respondent-employee was employed to operate the crusher machine by putting sugarcane therein. He was emplo...

Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)78ITD394(Mum.)

1. These appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the only question in the appeals is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the interest paid in respect of the amounts borrowed for the capital invested in the firm in which he is a partner, against the income by way of remuneration received by him from the firm.2. From the assessment year 1993-94, a new scheme of taxation of the firm and partners was introduced and briefly stated, according to the new scheme, the firm itself was taxed at the maximum marginal rate and the partners were taxed in respect of their share income. However, the interest and remuneration paid by the firm to its partners which were allowed as a deduction in computing the firm's taxable income were assessed in the hands of the partners who were in receipt of the same.Section 28(v) which was also introduced w.e.f the assessment year 1993-94 provided that any remuneration due or received by a partner of a firm fr...

Tips Cassettes and Record Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)82ITD641(Mum.)

1. This assessee's appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1993-94 and raises the following grounds of appeal: "1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in adding back the "audio right" expenses claimed at Rs. 1,43,33,495 and learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the additions. Appellant prays that in view of the facts discussed in details in appellate order of CIT(A)-XXIX for asst. yr. 1992-93 and same being identical to the facts of assessment year under appeal, as stated by the learned CIT(A) Central-V in his very order, same should have been allowed as "revenue expenses" as claimed by the assessee, subject to consideration of the relief already allowed under Section 35A of the Act as pointed out by the learned CIT(A) Central-V, Mumbai. Appellant prays that "audio right" expenses be allowed as claimed.2. Learned CIT(A) is not justified in disallowing 1/3rd of the motor car expenses and the depreciation claimed, as personal expenses and random relief given by the ...

Sadashiv Shivrao Kshirsagar Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(87)FLR588]; (2001)IIILLJ117Bom

R. J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner having joined the Respondent Corporation in the year 1965 as a trainee apprentice, he reached the promotional post of Divisional Engineer (Electrical) from the preceding post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). By an order dated July 1, 1982 the Petitioner was promoted as Divisional Engineer (Electrical) in the pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250. By the said order his promotion was subjected to one year's probation from the date he was to take over the charge of the post of the Divisional Engineer (Electrical) at Aurangabad. Accordingly, he took charge on July 1, 1982. The probation period of the Petitioner was to expire on June 30, 1983. It appears that by an order dated April 17, 1984 the probationary period of the Petitioner was extended upto July 31, 1984. By a subsequent order dated June 27, 1985 the Petitioner was reverted to his original post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in Class III State Cadre alleging that his work during the probationary period was n...

Ramesh S/O. Pandharinath Taharabadkar Vs. Executive Engineer, Jayakwad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ889Bom

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner union appears to have espoused the cause of in all 107 employees who were employed by the State of Maharashtra under the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 as the heads of their Divisions/ Departments respectively. The State Government had commenced and completed the gigantic project in the region of Marathwada for progress, welfare and benefits of the region, within a period of 30 years, namely Jayakwadi Project, under the Irrigation Department of the State. Admittedly the project was completed in 1976. On completion of the said project immediately next connected work of canal construction had to be started and the same was started in 1977 and was finally completed in 1984 in different phases as devised by the Respondents' engineers. Admittedly thousands of hands were required to complete such a gigantic project. As a result of the completion of the work/project retrenchment of workmen naturally becomes essential as they cannot be continued after the work is over...

Tips Cassettes and Record Co. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Mumbai)396

ORDERR.P. Tolini, J.M.This assessee's appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1993-94 and raises the following grounds of appeal :'1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in adding back the 'audio right' expenses claimed at Rs. 1,43,33,495 and learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the additions. Appellant prays that in view of the facts discussed in details in appellate order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIX for assessment year 1992-93 and same being identical to the facts of assessment year under appeal, as stated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) Central-V in his very order, same should have been allowed as 'revenue expenses' as claimed by the assessee, subject to consideration of the relief already allowed under section 35A of the Act as pointed out by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) Central-V, Mumbai. Appellant prays that 'audio right' expenses be allowed as claimed.2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is n...