Mumbai Court December 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.
Surendra Engineering Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)86ITD121(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee has been referred by the Hon'ble President, ITAT, to a Special Bench because of the conflict between two orders passed by the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in (1) ITA No.1555/Mum/1997, dt. 16th March, 2001, in the case of Jamnadas G.Hundalani, and (2) ITA No. 2561/Mum/98, dt. 30th July, 2001, in the case of Vinodiai Manilal & Co. Ltd. 2. The controversy arises this way. The assessee is a partnership firm.It is engaged in the business of export of "trading goods". During the relevant accounting year (year ending 31st March, 1995), the turnover amounted to Rs. 3,55,02,549 which consisted only of exports. In claiming deduction of Rs. 84,87,278 under Section 80HHC(3)(b), which is the appropriate provision applicable to an assessee who exports trading goods, the assessee contended that a part of the "indirect costs" has to be attributed to the export incentives received by the assessee during the year. These incentives consisted of the following : 2.1. The ass...
Rajnarainsingh Avadhraj Singh, Vs. Smt. Vidyadevi Widow of Ramraj Sing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1071
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.Heard the Advocates for the parties. Perusedthe record.1. In the facts and circumstances of the caseboth the applications being required to be heardtogether, were heard accordingly and are beingdisposed of by this common order.2. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnableforthwith.3. Civil Application No. 4437 of 2002 is forcondonation of delay in filing Civil ApplicationNo. 1932 of 2002 and later application i.e. CivilApplication No. 1932 of 2002 is for restoration ofFirst Appeal No. 891 of 1995, which was dismissed on6th October, 2001 as well as for condonation ofdelay in filing the certified copy of the decree inthe said Appeal. Civil Application No. 4437 of 2002is hereinafter referred to as the application forcondonation of delay and the Civil ApplicationNo. 1932 of 2002 is hereinafter referred to as theapplication for restoration.4. In the proceedings in application for condonationof delay it is the case of the Petitionersthat after the dismissal of the...
Sagar Tatoba Devtale and ors. Vs. Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom240; 2003(1)ALLMR892; 2003(2)MhLj162
V.G. Munshi, J. 1. By filing this petition the petitioners are seeking declaration to the effect that the reservation in respect of petitioners' land under revisional Survey No. 17/2B/1+2+3 of Miraj City Sanctioned Development Plan of respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation, which is reserved for playground has lapsed under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short MRTP Act) and therefore the petitioners are entitled to use their land for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible.2. The main facts of the case of the petition may be briefly stated as under:--The petitioners are owners of the land bearing Revisional Survey No. 17/ 2B/1+2+3 admeasuring 3 H and 5.77 Ares situated at Miraj city, District Sangli which is within the limits of respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation in the sanctioned Development Plan of Miraj city dated 26-4-1979 which came into force with effect from 30-6-1979. The petitioners land was reserved for the purpose of pla...
Bhogvati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Vs. Chaugule and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)MhLj562
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused record. Having examined the judgment and decree and the findings recorded therein, in the backdrop of challenges set up in the appeal, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for admission of the appeal. 'Admit'.2. While hearing this appeal for admission, it was noticed that the appellant did not pray for interim relief. The impugned money decree directs the appellant/original defendant to pay sum of Rs. 38,263.18 to the respondent original plaintiff together with future interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. The appellant therefore, was called upon to show cause; why the powers under Order 41, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C. P. C.' for short) should not be exercised directing it to deposit decretal amount pending adjudication of the appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant, in reply contends that deposit ofmoney or furnishing security can not be put as a ...
Bhogvati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Chaugule and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom185
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused record. Having examined the judgment and decree and the findings recorded therein, in the backdrop of challenges set up in the appeal, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for admission of the appeal.'Admit'.2. While hearing this appeal for admission, it was noticed that the appellant did not pray for interim relief. The impugned money decree directs the appellant/original defendant to pay sum of Rs. 38,263.18 to the respondent/original plaintiff together with future interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. The appellant therefore, was called upon to show cause; why the powers under Order 41, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C.' for short) should not be exercised directing it to deposit decretal amount pending adjudication of the appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant, in reply contends that deposit of money or furnishing security cannot be put as a co...
Suresh Manilal Shaha Vs. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR221
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 76 of 1985. The Complaint was filed by the Investigating Officer appointed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU & PULP Act'). 2. On the basis of certain complaints received by the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer conducted an enquiry into the grievances of the employees of Respondent No. 1 working in a branch office at Kolhapur. According to the report of the Investigating Officer, the employees of the Kolhapur branch office were not being given the same service conditions as were available to the employees of the Head Office at Chennai. The Investigating Officer found that that the employees at Chennai Head Office were being paid salary including Dearness Allowance and other allowances on the basis of a settlement signed with the Union functioning in the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asian Cables Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)139; [2003]262ITR535(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this reference relating to asst. yr. 1979-80 and 1980-84, Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following questions for opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Common question for both the asst yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the value of the work-in-progress has to be treated as part of the capital employed for the purpose of relief under Section 80J of IT Act, 1961 ? For asst. yr. 1979-80 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of: the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80-O of the Act should be calculated on the gross fees received by the assessee-company 2. The facts relevant for the purpose herein are as follows :In the assessment year in question the assessee claimed relief under Section 80J ofthe IT Act, 1961, by reference to the capital employed in the new bus...
Dhule Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Employees State Insura ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR173; 2003(4)BomCR683; (2003)IIILLJ780Bom; 2003(3)MhLj916
H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Market Committee'), which is governed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.P.M.C. Act').2. The first respondent to this Petition is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, constituted under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the E.S.I. Act'). The second respondent is its Director and the third respondent is the State of Maharashtra.3. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities not to enforce the provisions of the E.S.I. Act against the petitioner-Market Committee. The cause of action leading to the Writ Petition arises due to notices issued in February, 1999 sent by the Recovery Officer of the first respondent-Corporation calling upon the petitioner-Market Committee to pay its contribution for various periods ranging from 8th Nove...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]263ITR481(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Both the above two appeals raise common question of fact and law and, therefore, they are decided by this court by this common judgment. Both the above appeals have been preferred by the department under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The following question of law arises for determination in the above two appeals :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no tax was to be deducted at source on payment made by the assessee to AVL-Gesselschaft Fur Verbrennungskraftma-chlan M.B.H. Austria for the feasibility study of improving the performance of the existing diesel engine 265 DI as the payment represented fees for technical services and not royalty ?'3. For the sake of convenience, facts in Income-tax Appeal No. 1287 of 2000 may be seen.Facts :Vide agreement dated March 1, 1993, the assessee--Mahindra and Mahindra entered into an agreement with an Austrian company--AVL to enable the assessee t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishwas D. Ranade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2004]266ITR713(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. In this income-tax reference relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following questions for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in interpreting the implication of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum : [1981]129ITR440(SC) , the Supreme Court decision and consequently holding that there was a notional partition on the death of the karta/deceased and, therefore, the ancestral/ Hindu undivided family property did not belong to the Hindu undivided family as the Hindu undivided family did not survive ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have directed assessments of 4/5ths of the capital gains excluding only the share of the deceased, Shri Digambar Hari Ranade ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »