Mumbai Court January 2001 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.
Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants had a contract with M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited, whereby defective compressors earlier manufactured by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. were repaired by the present appellants. The revenue alleged that the process undertaken by the respondents amounted to manufacture of compressors on which duty was leviable. In this belief the adjudicating Collector after hearing the appellants confirmed duty of Rs. 2,51,07,053.73 of the appellants and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. The appeal is against this order.2. It is claimed that the facts in the present case were fully covered by Tribunal's Order No. C-II/3572-77/ WZB/2000, dt. 20-11-2000 (Certified on 4-12-2000) [2001 (132) E.L.T. 748 (T)] (Appeal Nos.E/2898, 2866-R/99-Mum.)] (M/s. Dattanand Refrigeration Services Pvt Ltd. and M/s. S.C. Industries). The Tribunal in that order had listed the process undertaken by the appellants in that case in Paragraph 5 of the cited order. We find that the process undertaken by th...
Pac Systems Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC798
1. This batch of appeal relates to and arises out of single order passed by the Commissioner of Customs-II Bombay. These appeals are therefore being disposed of together vide this common order.2. M/s. Pac Systems (P) Ltd. manufactured computers. M/s. Pac Computers were a trading company marketing computers including those manufactured by M/s. Pac Systems. Smt. Radhakrishna Kumari, her husband Shri P.Venketa Narayan and his brother Shri Laxmi Narayan were the directors of these two private limited companies, M/s. B.M. Thakkar & Co. Ltd. and M/s. Ponds India Ltd. are the appellants who had purchased certain computers manufactured by M/s. Pac Systems, although from other dealers. These seven appeals are against this common order.M/s. Pac Systems are located in Hyderabad and have a manufacturing facility in Mumbai. During March 1991 to September 1991 they had imported 18 consignments by parcel post. These had been cleared through the Customs at Bombay, and had been delivered to the ap...
Asstt. Cit Vs. India Magnum Fund
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Mum.)620
In this appeal filed by revenue, the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 levied by the assessing officer under section 271B has been challenged.This appeal relates to the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of section 44AB. Otherwise, there is no dispute about the facts of the case. These undisputed facts, in brief, are that the assessee was in the business of securities and stocks and being a mutual fund, its income was not chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 10(23D). The assessee, however, filed return of income under section 237 with a view to claim refund of tax deducted at source. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee's annual turnover had far exceeded the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs laid down under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act. The assessee argued that by virtue of provisions of section 10(23D), its income was not ta...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. India Magnum Fund
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2002)81ITD295(Mum.)
1. In this appeal filed by Revenue, the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 levied by the AO under Section 271B has been challenged.2. This appeal relates to the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 44AB. Otherwise, there is no dispute about the facts of the case. These undisputed facts, in brief, are that the assessee was in the business of securities and stocks and being a mutual fund, its income was not chargeable to tax under the provisions of Section 10(23D). The assessee, however, filed return of income under Section 237 with a view to claim refund of tax deducted at source. The AO noticed that the assessee's annual turnover had far exceeded the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs laid down under the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B of the Act. The assessee argued that by virtue of provisions of Section 10(23D), its income was not taxable. Hence, the assessee was not liabl...
The Principal, B.M. Ruia Mahila Mahavidyalaya and anr. Vs. Mrs. Nini G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR664; 2001(3)BomCR140; (2001)2BOMLR774; [2001(88)FLR1056]; 2001(4)MhLj379
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the University and College Tribunal at Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). By the impugned judgment and order the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the respondent herein. (For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the petitioners will be referred to as 'the management' and the respondent No. 1 will be referred to as 'the teacher').2. The learned Tribunal has set aside the order of termination of service of the teacher passed by the management and reinstated her with 2/3rd back wages. The Tribunal further passed an order to substitute the order of termination by a minor penalty of reprimand, warning and censure.3. The management has challenged the entire order of reinstatement with 2/3rd back wages while the teacher has challenged the same in another petition for having been denied the remaining 1/3rd back wages and imposition of minor punishment by the Tribunal.4. I have...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR302; 2001(3)BomCR160; (2001)3BOMLR377; [2001(88)FLR1069]; (2001)ILLJ877Bom; 2001(3)MhLj81
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. This is one more instance where a frivolous litigation claims very valuable public time in the Court of law. It is really an abuse of process of the Court of law. The petition has arisen from an order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal on 22.9.2000 on an application made by the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as Union) in the pending reference No. I. T. No. 39 of 1997. Following the union, the petitioner Company had also filed similar application and sought for similar, prayers as sought for by the union. Both these applications were taken on record by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibits U-141 and C-234. It appears that after giving 'No objection to this Hon'ble Tribunal passing an expert award in the case of those who have made the application by way of affidavits in the year 1998-99.' the Union has turned about and made volte-face. The union is now vehemently opposing the prayer of the Company for an award in terms of...
Nelco Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT56(Bom)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Jetley waives service for the Respondents. By consent, Rule called out and heard.2. We come across cases of citizens trying to dodge their revenue dues by resorting to endless series of litigation. This time the boot is on the other foot. It is Revenue which is trying to dodge and postpone the evil day.3. The facts are as under :The Petitioner is a registered company which manufactures goods exigible to duty under the Central Excise Act. There was a dispute between the Petitioner and the Central Excise authorities with regard to the value of certain computers. This dispute was finally resolved by an order made on 24th January, 1997 by the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT). The CEGAT, by the aforesaid order, partly allowed the Appeal and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Prior to the hearing the Appeal, the Petitioner was requi...
Girish Uskaikar Vs. Chief Secretary and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR122
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard petitioner in person and learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Rule made forthwith by consent of the parties.2.The petitioner in person in the instant petition, has challenged the decision taken by the Government of Goa to implement section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 273 of the Goa Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991, in the larger interest of the society on the following grounds :---(i) that the decision taken by the Government of Goa is motivated by some persons with vested interest;(ii) that the decision, if implemented, shall foster the interest of vested people to amass huge amount by unscrupulous means;(iii) that some Minister's relatives are connected with the business of helmets and in order to achieve their ulterior motive they have succeeded in persuading the Government to take the above referred decision and impose the use of helmet; and(iv) the decision taken by the Government of Goa is likely to affect the common people since two-w...
Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Mumbai)328
ORDERR.V. Easwar, J.M. The only issue in this appeal is whether the assessing officer can thrust depreciation upon the assessee and thereby reduce the profits eligible for deduction under section 80-IA despite the fact that the assessee had neither claimed depreciation nor furnished the particulars required for ascertaining the amount thereof.2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. The old unit is in Aurangabad. The new unit, the profits of which are eligible for the deduction under section 80-IA, is in Daman and started production in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1995-96. The claim of the assessee under section 80-IA for the year under appeal was Rs. 1,70,26,715. The assessing officer, however, reduced the same by the amount of depreciation of Rs, 13,87,736 and allowed deduction of the balance of Rs. 1,58,99,948. His reasoning, in brief, was that the depreciation claim had been withheld only with a view to availing of the deducti...
Jaswant Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT538Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The delay of seven weeks in filing the appeal is attributed to the illness of Jaswant Arya, the appellant's managing director. The medical certificate produced shows that the applicant suffered from "DNO with GD with APD". Certainly it does not show that the applicant was suffering from typhoid as claimed by the applicant. Further, in reply to a question, the applicant said that around 26 employees are working in his company and three others, apart from him, consisting of one supervisor, one accountant and his son who is a director deal with the day-to-day affairs of the company. He is unable to explain why, in his absence, steps to file the appeal could not be taken by any one of these three persons. When it was put to him that for seven weeks in his absence the company itself was run and met its obligation of paying bills, etc. he did not dispute this. We therefore do not find sufficient material to condone the delay and decline to do so....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »