Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Mandhana Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-XII, Mumbai/CIT(A)-- 1. was not justified in confirming the order of the Asstt. CIT thrusting depreciation, even though not claimed; 2. failed to appreciate that the appellant has an option to claim of depreciation and it can choose not to claim depreciation and amendment in Section 32 and Section 34 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, has not altered the basic principle; 3. erred in drawing a wrong conclusion that due to withdrawal of Section 34, the ratio laid down in the decision of the Bombay High Courts and Tribunals is not applicable; 4. failed to appreciate that Section 34 had no say in deciding the allowability of depreciation and in view of the matter, the omission of Section 34 from the Act shall not alter the position of not claiming of depreciation; 5. erred in holding that in order to work out the 'profits and gains of business', d...

Group CaptaIn A.S. Gangoli and ors. Vs. Union of India, Represented by ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR535; (2001)3BOMLR316; 2001(3)MhLj752

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioners seek to impugn the Note 1 appended to para 5 of the Respondent's decision contained in letter dated 30.10.1987 (Exh. C.) annexed with writ petition as being violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have further prayed that the Respondent be directed to grant to the Petitioners the weightage of 7 years while computing their pension and weightage of 5 years while computing their retirement gratuity. The Petitioners have also claimed for interest on delayed payment of due pensionary and gratuity amount.2. The Petitioners were employed in Indian Air Force (in short 'IAF') as Group Captains, Wing Commanders etc. and put in about 20/25 years of service. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent devised the scheme to solve. The problem of shortage of junior ranks and a surplus in the middle seniority bracket of a large number of officers, whereby the Public Sector undertakings could a...

GaIn Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR55; [2001(90)FLR1096]; (2001)IILLJ1050Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged three orders passed by the respondent. Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 16th April, 1992, 4th July, 1995 and 13th October, 1995. The order dated 16th April, 1992 passed by the Competent Authority pertains to an enquiry under section 7(A) of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act), after issuing due notice to the petitioners. The enquiry was started after the visit by the Enforcement Inspector to the establishment of the petitioner, between the period 1985 to 1986. From the report submitted by the Enforcement Inspector, it appeared to the authorities that the establishment had employed more than 19 employees in the month of April, 1982 i.e. 17 regular employees and three retainers. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Enforcement Inspector, the petitioners were summoned to appear before the Competent Authority on 12th February, 1987 for enquiry under section 7(A) of the Act. ...

Vijaya Bank Vs. Maker Development Services Pvt. Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR143; 2001(3)BomCR652

B. B. Srikrishna. J. 1. This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 6th/7th November, 2000 dismissing the petition to set aside the arbitral Award. FACTS 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, concisely stated, are as under :- The appellant is a nationalised bank, carrying on the business of banking in its various branches and offices in the city of Mumbal. The respondent is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 doing business in real estate including the business of hiring out built up areas of business premises. The respondent, at the material time, was the owner of certain premises situated on the ground floor and basement of Maker Chamber No. IV. Nariman Point. Mumbai 400 021. These premises were offered to the appellant under agreements of leave and licence dated 23rd May. 1988 and 27th June, 1989. Under the agreement of 23rd May, 19...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Bom)119

1. Two questions of law arise for determination in this appeal. They are as follows : '(a) Whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction in respect of excise duty and customs duty paid during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 as deduction in view of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (b) Whether the Department was right in disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 2,60,283 being staff sports and welfare expenses under Section 40A(9) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The appeal came for admission on March 14, 2001. It was heard at length. It was dismissed for reasons to be subsequently given. Hence, the following reasons are being given. Facts OH question No. 1 : 3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Central Government undertaking is the assessee. In this appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. In the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 12,62,47,225 under the head 'Excise and customs duty paid' ...

RiyazuddIn Ahmed S/O Mohammad Sayeed and ors. Vs. Tayyab Razak Chimtha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR781

S.K. Shah, J.1. Heard Shri Khamborkar, Shri Habibuddin Ahmed, learned Counsel for appellants and Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The original plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal against the order passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Nagpur on 13-12-1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 448/1999 dismissing the plaintiff's appeal filed against the order passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Nagpur on 17-8-1999 rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code inter alia holding that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of section 9 of C.P.C..3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :-The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant and his followers restraining them from publicly and socially claiming that they are Muslims. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 belong to 'Sunni' sect and the plaintiff No. 3 to the 'Shia' Sect Muslim community. They believe in prophet...

R.V. Gaitonde (Dr.) Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR490

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner before us is seeking direction for his appointment to the post of Principal of the Goa Pharmacy College and expunging adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports and consequently confirmed, for the academic year 1996-97. The brief facts leading to this petition may be stated as under:After obtaining his Bachelor's Degree in Pharmacy in 1967 the petitioner completed his Master's Degree in Pharmacy in 1971 and came to be appointed initially as Demonstrator with effect from 5-7-1967 on temporary basis and he was regularised in the said post on 15-7-1969. On his obtaining the Master's Degree in Pharmacy, he was appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis with effect from 12-11-973 and he came to be regularised in the said post in July, 1981. He was also a teacher for the Post graduate classes and was taken as an Examiner under the Bombay University. However, in the year 1986, it appears that respondent No. 5 who was then Officiating Principa...

Pratap S/O Ramrao More Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1887; 2001CriLJ2721

R.K. Batta, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for non-applicant.2. The applicant was convicted for offence under Sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 and was sentenced to 20 days simple imprisonment on each count as also fine of Rs. 400/- on the first count and fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. His substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The applicant challenged the conviction in the Court of Session and the Court of Session dismissed the appeal. The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of two Courts.3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has urged before me that even admitting the prosecution case in toto, no case of conviction under Sections 145 and 146 of the Railways Act, 1989 is made out. Since firstly the incident in question did not take place either in the railway carriage or upon any part of the railway, as required under Section 145 of the said Act and secondly at the time when the incident took place, it can...

Pawan Sachdeva (M.S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty of rs. 30 lakhs imposed under Section 112 of the Act of Pawan Sachdeva (application 2511); deposit of duty of Rs. 5.26 lakhs and penalties of rs. 5.26 lakhs under Section 114A and Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 112 on M.S. International Limited (application 2512) and deposit of duty of Rs. 24.89 lakhs and penalty of equivalent amount under Section 114A by Pearl International Ltd (application 2513).3. Duty has been demanded, and penalties had bene imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the polyvinyl chloride resin suspension imported by Pearls Intercontinental Limited and M.S.International Limited, of both of which companies Pawan Sachdeva is a director was undervalued. The Commissioners finds that the declared value of US$650 per tonne was lower than the lowest price for such resin quoted in Platt's Price Bulletin.4. In its decision in Adani Exports Ltd. Vs. CCE 2000 (116) ELT 715 the Chennai bench of the Tribunal has held...

M/S. Alembic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

When the stay application was called out, a letter from the applicants is noticed. It is claimed that the department has already recoverd the sums involved in the present appeal and therefore the stay application becomes infructuous. Prayer has also been made for stricutures to be passed on the department. I do not propose to do so, I dismiss the application....