Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)136; [2003]260ITR579(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj979

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the department against the Order of the Tribunal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act in respect of Assessment Year 1987-88.FACTS :--2. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of construction of buildings. As stated above, we are concerned with Assessment Year 1987-88. The assessee followed Mercantile System of accounting. The assessee followed Modified Project Completion Method for computing its profits. The assessee had secured development rights from Bombay Gaw Rakshak Mandal under Agreement dated 13th December 1984 in respect of a plot of land situate at Kandivali admeasuring 788000 sq. metres for total consideration of Rs 11 crores or Rs 50/- per sq. ft of FSI that may be sanctioned by BMC. A sum of Rs 1.10 crores was paid by the assessee to the transferor. Till the end of the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1987-88, the conveyance was not executed and, therefore, survey fees, professional fees etc. incurre...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jayprakash Krishna Mangaonkar,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)64; 2003BomCR(Cri)1085; II(2003)DMC384

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal as well as the accompnayingRevision Application are directed against thejudgment and order passed by the Sessions CourtSawantwadi at Sawantwadi, dated February 16, 1987,in Sessions Case No.50/1985. This appeal has beenfiled by the State of Maharashtra against the orderof acquittal, whereas the Revision has been filed byBalkrishna Dhondu Parkar, father of the deceased.The Respondents-original accused Nos. 1 to 3 weretried for the commission of offence punishable underSection 306, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian PenalCode.2. Briefly stated the accused No.1 isserving in Naval Dockyard at Bombay Since 1978,whereas the accused Nos. 2 & 3 are his parents whowere residing in the village at Dhabole, TalukaSawantwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg. Accused No.1 marriedShubhangi of village Hindoli, Taluka, Deogad on13th April 1984 and after the marriage she waschristened as Shital. It is the prosecution casethat the marriage suffered rough weather. InOctober 1984 accused No...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bangalore Clothing Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)127; [2003]260ITR371(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj764

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising the following question of law in respect of the assessment year 1992-93.2. Before formulating the question, the facts may be seen.Facts ;3. The assessee filed its return of income on January 29, 1993, declaring total income of Rs. 3,32,297 after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of Rs. 13,38,789. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) on February 14, 1994, on the total income of Rs. 3,32,300 after allowing deduction under Sections 80HHC and 80-I.4. This assessment order of the Assessing Officer, dated February 14, 1994, was revised by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. The order of the Commissioner is dated October 31, 1996. By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claims made by the assessee under Sections 80HHC and 80-I. In this case, we are concerned with computation o...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash Pictures

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)44; [2003]260ITR456(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. At the instance of the department, the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,25,000 paid by the assessee to the producer for acquisition of the exclusive rights of exploitation of the film 'Charas' under the indenture dated March 28, 1978, was admissible as deduction under Rule 9B of the Income-tax Rules in the assessment year 1979-80 ?'Facts :2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of distribution of films. On August 19, 1974, the assessee entered into an agreement with Sagar Enterprises, which had produced a Hindi film by the name 'Charas'. Under the agreement, the assessee acquired distribution rights in respect of the film 'Charas' on payment of Rs. 13.70 lakhs being the minimum guarantee payment. As per the agreement, the distribution...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. BasseIn Metals (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)393; [2003]263ITR518(Bom); [2003]132STC569(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, dt. 11th Sept. 2000, the Department has come in appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has set aside penalty of Rs. 5,69,798 under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1992-93.Facts 2. Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of non-ferrous alloys. During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that an amount of Rs. 9,90,953 was collected by the assessee. However, it was not credited to P&L; a/c. In reply to a query, the assessee submitted that it had maintained a separate account for sales-tax collected, and therefore, Rs. 9,90,953 was not credited to P&L; a/c. It was further argued by the assessee that by maintaining separate account for sales-tax collected, the P&L; a/c was not affected. This argument of the assessee was rejected by the AO who made an addition of Rs. 9,90,953. Based on this addition, the AO initiated p...

Amy N. Irani Vs. Makers Development Services (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR52; 2003(3)BomCR785; [2003(97)FLR938]; (2003)IILLJ847Bom

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the ex parte award dated January 29, 1997 in the Reference (IDA) No. 707 of 1984 and the judgment and order dated February 29, 2000 in the application filed for setting aside the ex parte award, passed by the Presiding Officer, 6th Labour Court. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, had made reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of dispute under Sections 10(1)(c), 12(5) and 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act').2. The reference was partly allowed and the respondent-company was directed to pay full back wages from December 1, 1983 till the date of order and also to pay 12 months compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the basis of last drawn wages of the petitioner. The respondent-company had challenged the judgment and order dated October 26, 1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1995. This Court (R.M. LODHA, J.) by order dated July 10, 1997 had ...

Hemmo Pharma Vs. Dawood Shoes Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR781

Deshmukh D.K., J.1. The facts relevant and necessary for deciding this summons for judgment are that the plaintiff has filed this suit on two bills of exchange, one dated 3-4-1996 and other dated 19-7-1996. Both the bills of exchange are bill of exchange payable on demand. They are both drawn by the defendant No. 1 and accepted by the defendant No. 2. The suit has been instituted on 18-12-2000. The plaintiff is claiming that the period of limitation is extended against both the defendants, because of part payment made on 24-7-1998 by the defendant No. 1.2. The defence of the defendants is that the period of limitation as against the defendant No. 2 will not get extended because of payment made by the defendant No. 1 on 24-7-1998 and as a part of the claim made in this suit is not triable in summary manner, both the defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff relies on the provisions of section 19 of the Indian Contr...

Bandu Alias Charandas Dighade Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)50; 2003BomCR(Cri)818; 2003CriLJ1990

R.S. Mohite, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant seeking to set aside a judgment and order dated 24-11-1999 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1992, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :(A) That, the appellant is real cousin brother of the prosecutrix Ku. Alka. It is alleged that some time in February, 1992 at about 10.00 or 11.00 a.m., the mother of prosecutrix Alka had gone to the river to wash clothes and her father had gone to the field for agricultural work. Therefore, the complainant Ku. Alka was alone at home and she was cooking food. It is alleged that at that time, the accused entered the house, threaten...

The Kopargaon Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application has been filed for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 62,358/- and equal penalty. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him (against the order of the Commissioner) for failure to deposit Rs. 75,000/- as ordered by him.2. We have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal, with consent of both sides.3. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding that the appellant did not pay duty on metal scrap that arose in its factory. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that at least part of this scrap was not manufactured by it, but consisted of steel strips which were used to fasten bundles of tarpaulin which it purchased. The description in four bills that were issued by the appellant to the dealer of the goods as flat strips seems to confirm this view. Taking this into account, we order that on the appellant depositing Rs. 35,000/- within a month from the receipt of this order, t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates to the classification of electrical item 'shunt'.Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the item is specifically covered under Entry 85.33 of the Central Excise Tariff and therefore the Assistant Commissioner has rightly classified the same under the said entry. He also relies on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Order dated 28-9-1993 passed in the case of M/s. Automatic Electric. His contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly classified the item under 90.33 when the same is specifically covered under 85.33.3. After hearing the learned J.D.R. and perusal of the records, we find that since the item in question is specifically covered under Entry 85.33 the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have upset the classification done by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 4-10-1996.4. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed and the impugned order is set aside....