Mumbai Court May 2002 Judgments
Smt. Sudhadevi Modi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD604(Mum.)
1. These are 20 appeals filed by 10 different assessees belonging to the same family. There are two appeals in each assessee's case. One set of 10 appeals is directed against the order of the CIT(A) by which he set aside the assessments made by the Assessing Officer and directed him to reframe the same after conducting certain enquiries. The other set of 10 appeals is directed against the order of the CIT(A), who confirmed the additions made in the fresh assessments made pursuant to the directions of the CIT(A). That is how we have 20 appeals before us.2. All the appeals were heard together and since they also involve the same issue, they are disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. By common consent, the appeals in the case of Smt. Kusumdevi Modi were taken up first and argued elaborately by both the sides, not only because the main order of the CIT(A) has been passed in this case, but also because the facts in all other cases are identical. No separate argu...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak H. Mewani and ors. Vs. District Deputy Registrar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR479
R.J. Kochar, J.1. I have heard the learned Advocates of both the sides at length on this first day of my summer vacation by the consent of the learned Advocates in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.2. It appears that the respondent No. 3 bank had challenged before the Supreme Court of India the interim order dated 14-5-2001 passed by this Court (A.S. Aguiar, J.) staying the impugned order of repelling passed by the respondent No. 1 be held on 16-5-2001, till further orders and directing the Board of directors of the bank not to take any policy decision. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the said interim order passed by this Court and dismissed the special leave petition by its order dated 16-7-2001. The Supreme Court, however, requested the High Court to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months. It appears that on account of extremely heavy board before the regular benches these petitions could not be disposed of as per...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Mohan Plastics Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC828
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of hoses of plastic that the respondent manufactured. The manufacturer had claimed classification of these goods to Heading 8424.00 of the Tariff as part of mechanical appliances of a kind used in agriculture or horticulture and exemption from duty available in Notification 46/94. Adjudicating on a notice issued to the manufacturer, the Asst.Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. He held that the goods were classifiable not as parts of mechanical appliance under Heading 8424.00 but as tubes and pipes of plastic under Heading 3917.00 and denied the exemption. The manufacturer appealed this order and the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention that the goods were more appropriately classifiable under Heading 8424.00 and allowed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by the Commissioner.2. We are not able to accept the ground in the appeal that by application of Note l(g) of Section XVI of the Tariff, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheraton Apparels, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR19; (2003)1BOMLR888; (2002)175CTR(Bom)651; [2002]256ITR20(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj302
V.C. Daga J.1. These three appeals have been filed against the common order dated February 22, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, C-Bench, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal, while confirming the said order, also upheld levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).Factual matrix2. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass and it is this :3. The appellants are partnership firms engaged in the business of manufacturing garments and operate as semi wholesalers. The appellant is a part of a group concern belonging to one Shah family. Returns for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 were filed by the assessee. In pursuance thereof assessments were finalised.4. There was a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, carried out in the shop premises of all the appellants after the returns were filed by them. One of such seizure operations was carried out at the residence of partners of the group con...
Tag this Judgment!Rangrao Bajirao Deshmukh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR486; (2002)3BOMLR269; 2002(3)MhLj281
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought writ for quashing Notification dated 18th July, 1992 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act and Notification dated 7th July, 1993 issued by the Additional Commissioner under Section 6 of the said Act.2. On 22nd October, 1993 this petition was admitted and status quo order was passed and the same has been continued.3. The facts having bearing on the subject-matter of the present petition are as follows.4. It is the case of petitioners that on the basis of proposal submitted by Talathi of village Bordi, respondent No. 3 Land Acquisition Officer had initiated the above acquisitions proceedings for the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners admeasuring OH 80R from Gat No. 3 (old survey No. 1/3) situated at mouza Bordi, Tahsil Akot, District Akola for the purpose of extension of Gaothan due to increase in population. It is submitted that on 17th September, 1992 the petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Blue Star Workers Union Vs. Blue Star Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ477Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner union is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated January 8, 1993 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint ULP No. 213 of 1984. The complaint was filed by the petitioner union against the respondents alleging unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule II and also Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The nub of the complaint filed by the petitioner can be very briefly stated. The petitioner had sought relief against the action of the company resorting to suspension of work w.e.f. June 1, 1984 and subsequently effecting lock-out w.e.f. June 18, 1984. According to the petitioner union, the aforesaid notice of suspension of work and lock-out which commenced on June 18, 1984 was an unfair labour practice as contemplated under Item 6 of Schedule II of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It also amounted to an unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Uttam Shatrughan Rase ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR68; [2002(94)FLR792]; (2003)ILLJ62Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Objections other than Court fees dispensed with office to register the petition. Petitioners are directed to pay the Court fees within seven days. Rule. Notice on respondents dispensed with. Heard forthwith. Petitioners impugn the order dated August 18, 2000. By the said order the Industrial Court has confirmed the order dated August 14, 1992 passed by the Labour Court. The petitioners do not challenge directions Nos. 1 and 2 of the said order. What is being challenged is direction No. 3 which reads as under;The opponent shall also pay supplementary: gratuity to the complainant in lieu of the reinstatement as a compensation within one month from the date of this order.It is contended on behalf of the petitioners, that the said direction is without jurisdiction as the termination on the ground of medical unfitness would not amount to retrenchment and further respondent could not have supplementary gratuity in lieu of, reinstatement.2. The petitioners have framed regul...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Govind Sapkal and ors. Vs. Collector of Dhule and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR550; 2004(2)MhLj874
C.K. Thakker, C. J.1. All these petitions have been placed for hearing before a Full Bench on a reference being made by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (B.H. Marllapale, J.) and N.H. Patil, J. In all the three petitions, a common question of law has been raised viz., the extent of power, authority and jurisdiction of the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to suspend an order or resolution passed by a Municipal Council.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, few relevant facts in the First matter i.e. Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1996, Sanjay Govind Sapkal and Ors. v. The Collector of Dhule and Ors., may be stated.3. The said petition was filed by fourteen petitioners claimed to have been appointed by Municipal Council, Dhule, respondent No. 2 herein. The President of respondent No. 2-Council made several a...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyandeo H. Jadhav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR489
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the earthquake/project affected persons from Koyna claiming a plot of land in Mumbai for housing the displaced persons.2. After the earthquake in Koyna in the year 1967 and the construction of the dam at Koyna, several people living in Koyna were rendered homeless. Many of them migrated to Mumbai in 1967. However, on their arrival in Mumbai, it was difficult for them to find any shelter and proper housing. Therefore, after a period of fifteen years, i.e. on 7th September, 1982, petitioner No. 1, who was one such displaced person, applied to the Mamlatdar, Borivali for allotment of a plot of land in order to construct a building where all these persons who proposed to form a Co-operative Housing Society could accommodate themselves. The petitioners also addressed an application to the Additional Collector, Bombay Suburban District, requesting him to allot a plot of land. The Additional Collector replied to this letter on 7th Janu...
Tag this Judgment!Harshad Sunderlal Maniar Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR297
1. Admit. Respondents waive service.By consent appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellant is a Government approved valuer. He is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paras 11 and 16 of the impugned judgment and order dated 8-3-2002 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1999 reported in : 2002(3)BomCR431 . Briefly stated the facts are that the first floor of the property bearing CTS No. 2023 of Mandavi Division belonging to the respondent No. 3 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. During the acquisition proceedings the respondent No. 3 had filed his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000 per sq.ft. In support of his claim the respondent No. 3 submitted valuation report dated 20-7-1994 prepared by the appellant. The appellant in his report referred to three sale instances including instance of sale of CS No. 1784 of Mandavi Division under registered conveyance deed dated 28-5-198...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »