Mumbai Court January 2002 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.
Saheblal Ahmed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ487CAT
1. The facts in this case, as brought forth by the applicant and as gleamed from the reply statement of the respondents arc that the applicant was working in the Railways from 1962 and had reached the position of Goods Driver, before he finally retired. He states that he had submitted an application dated 6.2.1991 retirement from the Railways which was accepted vide letter dated 12.3.1991 (Annexures A-3 and A-4). The retirement was sought w.e.f. 31.5.1991 as seen from Annexure A-3. The applicant further states that vide letter dated 19.4.1991, however he informed respondent No. 2 that the aforesaid application dated 6.2.1991 may be treated as withdrawn/cancelled. He underscores the fact that this letter was issued well before expiry of three months i.e. before 5.5.1991. The applicant was informed vide letter dated 31.5.1991 by respondent No. 3, that his application seeking withdrawal/cancellation of request for voluntary retirement had been rejected and that he was to retire w.e.f. 31...
J.C. Malhotra (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD296(Mum.)
1. Out of the above two appeals, one is by the assesses and the other filed by the Revenue for asst. yr. 1989-90. The assessee in its appeal challenges the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the CIT.The Revenue's appeal arise out of the order of the CIT(A) against the order under Section 143(3) passed by the AO consequent to the order under Section 263 by the CIT. The grounds taken by the parties are as under : "1. The learned CIT has erred in passing the order under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, and setting aside the assessment order for asst. yr. 1988-89. on the ground that provisions of Clause (v) of Section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961, are applicable to the appellants case. 2. The learned CIT has failed to appreciate that the amended Clause (v) and Clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of IT Act, apply to transactions taken place after 1st April, 1987 and the appellants transaction had taken place on 17th Sept., 1986, that is asst, yr. 1987-88. 4. The relief claimed is to cance...
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Vs. Haridas Govinddas Gu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR913; 2002(4)BomCR260; (2002)3BOMLR779; 2002(2)MhLj215
J.G. Chitre, J.1.The petitioners are assailing correctness,propriety, and legality of the order passed by the 8thAdditional District Judge, Pune in the matter of Misc.Civil Appeal No. 320 of 1985 whereby he confirmed thejudgment and order passed by Judge, Small Causes Court,Pune in the matter of Municipal Appeal No.10/1984.2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding thecontroversy. The respondent is having a bungalow knownas 'Shree' at A-6, Suparshwanath D Cooperative housingSociety, Ltd., 692/693, Market Yard Road, Gultekadi,Pune. A demand notice was sent to the respondent whereinthe rateable value of his bungalow was stated to beRs.6700/- per annum. The respondent filed appeal undersection 406 of Bombay Provincial Municipal CorporationAct 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, forconvenience) and challenged the said rateable value andresultant taxes. He also challenged the notice dated8/2/1984 bearing No.PS/S/7215 served on him on 7/3/1984by which he was assessed to the tune of R...
Dadasaheb Dattajirao Nimbalkar Deceased Bhojraj Satyappa Patil and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR275; 2002(3)BomCR590; (2002)3BOMLR642; 2002(2)MhLj740
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Since the common question of law arises in these matters the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. These Appeals were admitted on 11th October, 1988 as First Appeals. However, in view of the decision of this Court in the matter of Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi v. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar reported in : AIR1998Bom131 , it is necessary to ascertain whether there arises any substantial question of law in these matters. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, it is apparent that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Appeal:--'Whether the Court in exercise of provisions under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter called to as, 'the said Act') can interfere with the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner refusing to exercise the jurisdiction on the ground that the delay in approaching the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahkari Sakha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR568(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. These two appeals, filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Income-tax Act' for short), are directed against the order passed by the Income-tax Tribunal, Pune Bench, Pune (the 'Tribunal' for short), raising substantial questions of law appearing hereunder :The assessment orders involved in these petitions are for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The Assessing Officer, by the said assessment orders, made certain additions in respect of various funds and deposits collected by the respondents out of sugarcane price payable to the cane growers during the course of trading operations. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders impugned therein. The said appellate orders were confirmed by the Tribunal by dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue holding that the funds/deposits collected by the respective societies, being out of the purchase price payable to the cane growers, were not trading rece...
Dialust Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)413; [2003]261ITR456(Bom)
1. The above matter was called out for admission today. Parties were heard on admission. The petition was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later. Accordingly, our reasons for rejection of petition based on the following facts are as under :2. Although as many as nine questions are sought to be raised as substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, in our opinion, the appellant is in fact seeking reappraisal of the evidence and there are no substantial questions of law arising in this appeal.3. The assessment order relevant for the purpose herein is the block period from April 1, 1986, to October 18, 1996.4. The assessee is a firm of diamond exporters. On April 3, 1996, the office premises of the assessee were searched by the FERA authorities, wherein cut and polished diamonds, weighing 20,076.07 carats, found in the cupboard and on the table top of the assessee's office premises were seized. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the investigation bran...
J.C. Malhotra (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Mumbai)31
ORDERR.P. Tolani, J.M.Out of the above two appeals, one is by the assessee and the other filed by the revenue for assessment year 1989-90. The assessee in its appeal challenges the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner. The revenue's appeal arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order under section 143(3) passed by the assessing officer consequent to the order under section 263 by the Commissioner. The grounds taken by the parties are as under :Assessee'1. The learned Commissioner has erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and setting aside the assessment order for assessment year 1988-89, on the ground that provisions of clause (v) of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are applicable to the appellants case.2. The learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the amended clause (v) and clause (vi) of section 2(47) of Income Tax Act, apply to transactions taken place after 1-4-1987 and the ...
Cit Vs. Shri Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]121TAXMAN349(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. These two appeals, filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Pune Bench, raising substantial question of law appearing hereunder :The assessment orders involved in these petitions are for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The assessing officer, by the said assessment orders, made certain additions in respect of various funds and deposits collected by the respondents out of sugarcane price payable to the cane growers during the course of trading operations. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders impugned therein. The said appellate orders were confirmed by the Tribunal by dismissing the appeals filed by the revenue holding that the funds/ deposits collected by the respective societies, being out of purchase price payable to the cane growers, were not trading receipts of the assessees. On the aforesaid canvass of basic fact...
Mr. Dilip Narayanrao Jadhav and anr. Vs. Mah. Rajya Sahakari Dudh Sang ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR883; (2002)104BOMLR217
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have principally prayed for following reliefs:a. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction, quashing and setting aside the orders of allotment made by the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Exhibit to this petition.b. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to release the said lands from the acquisition and to return the said lands to the original occupants thereof including the Petitioners on such terms and conditions as this Honourable High Court may deem fit and proper.3. The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing new Survey Nos. 79, 80 and 76 corresponding to old Survey Nos. 130, 132 and 133 respectively situate at Village Katraj, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune was in Mirashi tenancy of the petitioners predecessors-in-title. The said land was acquired for set...
Ashima Denims Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT624Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above application for modification of the Order No.C-I/3363-67/WZB/2001, dated 29-10-2001, by which M/s. Ashima Denims was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs out of the total duty demand of Rs. 1.27 crores and penalty of equal amount within two months, has been filed for the following reasons. (i) That duty of Rs. 77,52,053/- which has been confirmed on dyed yarn by inclusion of duty levied on grey yarn, and warping and sizing thereof is prima facie not sustainable since duty, if at all payable, is only payable on the dyeing component and this works out to Rs. 6,50,309/- only. The contention of the applicant in this regard is that, the plea that only the dyeing component attracts duty, which was raised in the appeal, has not been considered while passing the order directing pre-deposit. (ii) That adoption of cost plus profit basis for valuing the yarn captively consumed resulting in duty demand of Rs. 49,65,635/-is contrary to the Tribunal's Final Order No. 16/2001-A, da...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »