Mumbai Court July 2000 Judgments
Janardan Ramchandra KuThe Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR55
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of externment, being externment proposal No. 8/92 dated 26th March, 1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division, Alibaug. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Appeal and Security), Home Department, Bombay by his order dated 26th August, 1994 confirmed the externment order with slight modifications in Appeal No. Ext. 2194/82-SPL-5.2. It is the contention of Mr. Kachare, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/accused, that since the time of two years has expired, this petition has become infructuous. He, however, admits that after the order was served upon the petitioner, the petitioner did not remove himself from the area, and he in fact obtained stay order from this Court on 30th January, 1994.3. Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. for respondents, on the other hand, brings to my notice the judgment of this Court, reported in : (1994)94BOMLR803 Shar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ravi Ratna Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2000
Reported in: [2000]112TAXMAN577(Bom)
Kapadia, J.By our order dated 25-7-2000, the appeal of the department was allowed in following terms:'This appeal concerns the assessment year 1989-90. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that interest income is business income. In view of the judgment of this court in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 2) v. CIT : [1991]191ITR359(Bom) , such income cannot be business income. It is income from other sources. Therefore, it will not form part of profits from business under section 80HHC. Hence, the appeal is allowed, No costs.'2. We now seek to give detailed reasons which are mentioned hereinbelow.3. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1989-90. In the said assessment year, the assessee received Rs. 35,000 as interest on fixed deposits. The assessee claimed interest income and included the same in business profits in the following formula, viz., Business profits X Export turnover/ total turnover to arrive at export profits on which the assessee claimed deduction under section 80...
Tag this Judgment!Parag Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT540Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Parag Industries Private Limited, the appellant in E/2593/99-Bom. is engaged in processing of textile fabrics. The processing is undertaken by it exclusively as a job worker, the grey fabrics being supplied by other persons to whom it returns the fabrics after processing. Among the persons who supplied grey fabrics for processing is M/s. Parag Prints Private Limited and Parag Fabrics.2. The department was of the view that these three firms Parag Industries Limited, Parag Prints Private Limited and Parag Fabrics are related by reason of the fact of common office and directors, and the fact that brand name 'Parag' which belong to Parag Prints Private Limited is also being used by the job worker. Notice was issued proposing to adopt as the assessable value of the fabrics processed by Parag Industries Limited, price at which these fabrics are sold by Parag Prints Private Limited and Parag Fabrics. In the order impugned in these appeals the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal i...
Tag this Judgment!Sonalkar Chemicals Vs. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)206; 2001BomCR(Cri)142; (2001)4BOMLR659; 2000(4)MhLj832
Pratibha Upasanl, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the original complainant M/s. Sonalkar Chemicals, being aggrieved by the order dated 10th March, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No- 606 of 1994. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. allowed the said Criminal Revision Application of the Revision Applicants/original accused, and quashed the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Pune in Criminal Case No. 215 of 1994 on 16th June. 1995.2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :-The complainant filed complaint dated 17th May, 1994 against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for offence punishable, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant is a proprietary concern and used to supply silver to accused No. 1 Company. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are some of the Directors of accused No. 1. The complainant used to convert silver in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR429(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Two important questions of law arise for determination in this appeal. Whether Section 80AB applied to Section 80HHC? Whether, in determination of business profits under Section 80HHC, the unabsorbed business losses of the earlier years under Section 72 should be set off 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows : The appeal concerns the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee filed its return of income on November 30, 1995. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the profits derived from exports. The export profits were calculated with reference to the profits of the business in proportion of the export turnover to the total turnover as per Section 80HHC(3). The assessee contended that in view of Section 80HHC read with Explanation (baa), profits of the business has been defined to mean profits computed under the head 'Profits and gains of business' which, in turn, referred to Sections 28 to 44D and it did not refer to S...
Tag this Judgment!Devdas S. AmIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR629; 2001(2)BomCR183; [2001(88)FLR206]; (2001)ILLJ501Bom
Vijay Daga, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent petition is taken up forhearing.2. This petition is directed against the decision of the Government Labour Officer, Thane refusing to forward failure report to the State Government and/or its delegates under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short).3. The brief facts are as under:The petitioner was employed by respondent No. 4 as Store Keeper in the year 1992. The petitioner worked in the said capacity till he was terminated on June 30, 1997 upon shifting of the factory to Kandla. The petitioner stated that he was directed to work as Store Keeper in the establishment of respondent No. 3, while his name was shown on the roll of respondent No. 4. The petitioner continued to work as such. He was relieved from respondent No. 4 from June 30, 1997 and was thereafter taken on rolls of respondent No. 3 -a si...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ramchandra Nadkarni Vs. Chandbibi Hyder (Smt.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR206
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original complainant, being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd December, 1992 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, in Case No. 6/S of 1991, discharging accused No. 2 Smt. Chandbibi for offences punishable under sections 289, 341, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, directing that the case will proceed only against accused No. 1 R.J. Metha.2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows:The petitioner filed a complaint dated 11th April, 1984 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, against both the accused under sections 289, 341, 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated by him in the said complaint that he is a practising Advocate, having his office situated at Room No. 5 on the second floor of Kennedy House near Kennedy Bridge, Bombay-7. Petitioner is the tenant of this office premises ...
Tag this Judgment!M.i.R.C. Electronics Limited Vs. Navghar - Manikpur Nagar Parishad and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR292
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Heard Mr. C.R. Dalvi for the Petitioner, Mr. Abhay Oak for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. I.S. Thakur, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 3 - State of Maharashtra.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the following factual matrix : -On 7.3.1996, the Respondent No. 2 Chief Officer; Navghar - Manikpur Nagar Parishad, Vasai Road, Taluka Vasai, District Thane sent a notice dated 7.3.1996 to the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,58,86,894/- as the difference between the octroi duty of goods brought by the Petitioner during the period 14.6.1994 and 9.1.1996. The Petitioner assailed the said notice by preferring Regular Civil Suit No. 75 of 1996 in the Court of C.J. (J.D.) at Vasai, praying for a declaration that the said notice be declared illegal, inoperative and ineffective. The learned Civil Judge heard the Petitioner's application for injunction and for raising the attachment of the Petitioner's factory premi...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Brihan Maharashtra Steel Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN508(Bom)
Kapadia, J. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether the assessing officer was justified in making adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by computing deduction under section 80HHC by reducing the profits on account of deduction admissible under section 32A of the Act Section 80HHC of the Act has undergone several changes. This section has been debated in various decisions of the Tribunal. In fact, a Special Bench of the Tribunal was required to be constituted to interpret the changes in the said section. Under the above circumstances, the assessing officer was not justified in making an adjustment under section 143(1)(a) by computing the deduction under section 80HHC after reducing the profits on account of the deduction admissible under section 32A. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that section 143(1)(a) cannot be invoked by the assessing officer. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)580; [2000]112TAXMAN311(Bom)
Kapadia, J.Two important questions of law arise for determination in this appeal. Whether section 80AB applied to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Whether, in determination of business profits under section 80HHC the unabsorbed business losses of the earlier years under section 72 of the Act should be set off ?2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows :3. The appeal concerns the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee filed its return of income on 30-11-1995. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC in respect of profits derived from exports. The export profits were calculated with reference to profits of business in proportion of the export turnover to the total turnover as per section 80HHC(3). The assessee contended that in view of section 80HHC read with Explanation (baa), profits of the business have been defined to mean profits computed under the head 'Profits of business' which, in turn, referred to s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »