Mumbai Court July 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.
Dy. Cit Vs. Kamlashankar P. Joshi and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]79ITD229(Mum)
ORDERIn this appeal by the department, objection is taken to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 52,762 made by invoking the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in imported as well as indigenous bearings. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 52,762 representing interest, by invoking the provisions of section 40(b) on the following reasoning:'5. Interest paid to partners.Shri M.K. Joshi has obtained Rs. 3 lakhs loan from Standard Chartered Bank during the assessment year 1991-92. This loan was taken in the individual capacity of Shri M.K. Joshi, by pledging his shares and the shares belonging to some of his family members. The loan was sanctioned by the Standard Chartered Bank in the name of Shri M.K. Joshi. As a partner of the firm, Shri M.K. Joshi, advanced this amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to M/s. Kamlashankar P. Joshi & Co., without charg...
Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke Vs. Shaikh Hamaja Shaikh Husen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR749; (2000)102BOMLR563
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment passed by M.R.T., Pune dated 12.8.1986.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was the tenant in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 563/2+3 situated at Indapur, District Pune. The Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit land prior to 1953 by the original owner Shaikh Jamal Shaikh Mohiddin and Shaikh Amir Ahmeaja Shaikh Hussain. Shaikh Amir A. Shaikh Hussain is the Respondent herein. It is common ground that the petitioner was cultivating the suit land as a tenant on the tiller's day i.e. 1.4.1957, By virtue of the provisions of B.T. & A.L. Act, the Petitioner, being deemed tenant, became deemed purchaser in respect of the suit land. It is the case of the Respondent that partition was effected by the landlords inter se some time on 30.12.1957. In the said partition, it is stated that the suit lands came to the share of the Respondent herein. It is relev...
Late Shri G.S. Kamath Through Lr Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mumbai)510
ORDERPradeep Parikh, A.M.All the ten appeals are by the assessee and pertain to assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1988-89. The first set of appeals i.e. 965 to 967/Bom/1993, is directed against the combined order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 8-7-1991, and pertains to the quantum of assessment made under section 143(3) read with section 147 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Second set of appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 786 to 788/Bom/1994 is directed against three separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) all dated 29-12-1993, and pertains to penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the three years under consideration. The third is a lone appeal, i.e. ITA No. 5916/Bom/1995 directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-1-1995, and pertains to the quantum of assessment for assessment year 1988-89. The final set is of three appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 5958 to 5960/Bom/1996, and is directed against the combined order of the le...
Suresh Channappa Shete Vs. Sou. Lata Suresh Shete and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)227; (2001)3BOMLR251; 2001(1)MhLj307
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner/husband Suresh Channappa Shete. being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 16th August, 1994 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge. Satara in Criminal Revision Application No. 208 of 1990.2. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge. Satara, partly allowed the said Criminal Revision Application No. 208 of 1990 filed by the original applicant/wife Lata Suresh Shete. The said Revision was filed by the original applicant Lata. being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 1st of September, 1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Satara, whereby, though application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, the amount of maintenance which the husband was directed to pay to the wife, was only Fifty Rupees per month and that too from the date of the order i.e...
Bhaurao S/O. Jairam Kadam Vs. Nanded Zilla Parishad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ109Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the order of suspension dated July 27, 1984 and the subsequent orders passed by the respondent No. 3 who had by his order dated June 29, 1987, confirmed the impugned order of suspension passed by the respondent No. 1. The Petitioner is also praying for all consequential benefits, such as, full pay during the period of suspension.2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 as a Primary teacher from October 4, 1962 with meritorious service record. The respondent No. 1 is a statutory body incorporated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.3. It appears that there was some family dispute in respect of the land pursuant to which a criminal complaint appears to have been filed against the brother of the petitioner and also against the petitioner. The criminal complaint was filed on May 8, 1984. All t...
Shri Vasant Devlal Bhavsar Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR133
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This writ petition was heard by us on 10th July, 2000 as well as 12th July, 2000 and when we indicated our mind to dismiss it, the petitioner sought some time to file a withdrawal purshis and stated that he desired to reconsider and settle the dispute with the Bar Council and other respondents in its entirety. However, on 19th July, 2000 he submitted a purshis stating therein that he did not want to press the matter and sought leave to withdraw the petition without prejudice. In the normal course we would have disposed of the petition as withdrawn on the basis of the purshis. We are required to deviate from this normal practice taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondent No. 3, more so when we are fully satisfied that these allegations are scandalous, scurrilous, baseless, imaginary and aimed at maligning the character and standing of respondent No. 3, as a member of the bar as well as an office be...
Siraj Ahmed A. Buddashet Vs. State of Goa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR218; 2001(2)BomCR554
R.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner challenges the acquisition of part of Survey No. 154/2 admeasuring 4075 sq. mts. and part of Survey No. 154/3 admeasuring 8,900 sq. mts. which was notified vide Notification dated 31st May, 1995, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Notification dated 12th August, 1996, under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner claims that Survey No. 154/2 has been inherited by him vide Deed of Partition dated 3rd July, 1971 and Survey No. 154/3 was leased to his father by Santa Casa de Misericordia de Goa and that the petitioner continues to be lessee of the said Survey No. 154/3. According to the petitioner these two properties are agricultural properties and there exist various fruit bearing trees therein.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the challenge to the acquisition is basically on two grounds, namely :---1. The area acquired falls within 22 mts. of the protected monuments wherein no development or ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tara Nitrates (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Mumbai)199
ORDERM.A. Bakshi, J.M. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the revenue , both for assessment year 1992-93, by this consolidated order. One appeal is in respect of assessment made under section 143(3) and another is against the order under section 154. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. We first take up the appeal against the regular assessment passed under section 143(3). The issue involved is relating to adjustment of carried forward investment allowance. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee-company in engaged in the business of manufacturing amonium and sodium nitrate. For assessment year 1992-93 the assessee had earned a profit of Rs. 5,49,122. In the preceding year there was a loss of Rs. 4,75,000. The assessee had set off the unabsorbed losses and depreciation and declared the income at Nil.3. The assessee had committed a mistake in claiming the set off of unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of 100 per cent when under...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Auto World
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT500Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.04.1999, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai disposed of 16 appeals filed before him by importers of second hand diesel engines challenging the orders of the lower authorities as to the quantum of fines and penalties. 16 appeals have been filed by the Revenue against this combined order. Another Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by his order dated 29.09.1999 disposed of 5 appeals filed before him by traders placed in similar circumstances. The Revenue have filed 5 appeals against this combined order. Since these two sets of appeals involve the same issue, we are taking up all these appeals together for disposal after hearing Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue and Dr. S.N. Kantawala, advocate for the respondents.2. In disposing of the 16 appeals before him, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had placed reliance on the findings of the Tribunal as to the leviable quantum of fines and penalties attracted by similar engines. The Commissioner (...
Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT326Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case imported certain machinery which on an examination was found to be old and used. The concerned documents namely the invoice, packing list, bill of lading etc. did not describe this condition of the goods. The goods were claimed to be free of duty in terms of Notification 13/81-Cus. since the importers were a 100% EOU. The capital goods list attested by the Development Commissioner also did not show the second hand condition of the goods. The department also noticed that the Development Commissioner' s attestation was subsequent to the filing of the bill of entry which was subsequent to importation. The Commissioner accepted that under the Policy the second hand goods could be imported by the actual users as well as by the 100% EOUs. He however held that the certificate not having been issued in regard to second hand goods, the certificate did not cover the goods. He ordered confiscation of the goods for mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »