Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
Smt. Gobibai V. Ghanavat Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)851; 2003(2)MhLj851
S.S. Parkar, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife if the detinue by name Valmiki Tulshiram Dhanawat, has challenged the order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune for detention of the detinue under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootlegers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment 1996).2. It is alleged that the detinue was dealing a illicit liquor. He was involved in following criminal cases registered against him under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act:On 31st July 2001 information was received that the detenu and his hirelings were transporting illicit liquor in a car. Therefore, head constable along with the staff and panch witnesses carried out a raid and accosted white maruti van in front of Kusalkar bungalow at about 4.00 hrs. The detenu ran away from the maruti van leaving two plastic cans on the spot which contained 60 litres of illicit liquor which was seized by the police under...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Major General Sir Shahaji Chhatrapati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)345
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, viz.:'1. Whether income from property known as Shalini Palace at Kolhapur, purported to be gifted by the assessee by gift deed dt. 27th Sept., 1964, subject to the agreement between the assessee and the donee dt. 27th Sept., 1964, could be included in the assessee's total income ?2. Whether the gift deed dt. 27th Sept., 1964, by which assessee gifted Shalini Palace to Chhatrapati Shivaji Co-operative Education Society, had to be considered with the agreement of the same date between the assessee and the donee-society as part of the same transaction and whether in view of the said agreement there could not be said to be a gift to the donee absolutely until the conditions in the agreement were fulfilled ?3. Whether, on proper interpretation of the gift deed dt. 27th Sept., 1964, as also the agreement dt. 27th Sept., 1964,...
Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Bom)534; [2003]262ITR330(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. This tax appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 515/PN of 1994, dated November 3, 2000, stating that the following substantial questions of law arise out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, namely : '1. Whether in view of specific definition of the expression 'book profit' given in Explanation to Section 115J(1) of the Income-tax Act, it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the book profit beyond those authorised by the definition and to recast the profit and loss account 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Departmental authorities and the Tribunal were justified in rejecting the amount of depreciation actually debited to the profit and loss account admittedly prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, and in holding that the assessee ought to have provided depreciation on the same basis as adopt...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Pralhadsa Lahanusa Kashtriya a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj649
B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The Government of Maharashtra had acquired the agricultural land located in Survey Nos. 374/1, 374/1/2, 375/1/2, 375/3 and 378 of Sangamner for the purpose of construction of 138 KV Sub Station of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B., for short) at Sangamner and the total area admeasured 7 Hectares 97 Ares. Award came to bepassed on 7th April, 1986. Being dissatisfied with the award amount some of theland holders applied, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for reference and accordingly Reference Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of 1989 came tobe made before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Sangamner.All these References were decided by a common judgment rendered on 25th ofNovember, 1991.2. The M.S.E.B., for whom these lands were acquired, has challenged the common award by filing these appeals, which have been admitted in July, 1994. We have also noted that some of the land owners have challenged the same common award in Fi...
Kashinath Laxman Ingley Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)48; 2003BomCR(Cri)1387; (2003)105BOMLR832
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard forthwith.2. Heard Shri N.S. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court, Wardha and sentenced to suffer R. I. for life. It is contended that the petitioner was released on furlough leave for a period of two weeks by D.I.G. (Prisons) vide order dated 8.11.2000 and was required to be surrendered on 23.11.2000. The learned Counsel contended that the petitioner could not surrender on the due date and there was a delay of 50 days in surrendering before the Jail Authorities. It is contended that since the petitioner surrendered late by 50 days, the Jail Authorities in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Prisons Act, 1894, awarded punish...
Mrs. Alka P. Vala Vs. Ito
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)251
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.Both appeals are filed by assessee and are directed against two separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 31-1-1995, for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. 2. Ground of appeal for both appeals is identical and reads as under 'On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not deleting entirely the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961'3. Original assessments in respect, of both these years were completed under the provisions of section 143(1) on 24-11-1987, and 12-11-1990, for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively. As per the claim of assessee, the assessee had received following gifts during the years under considerationAsst. yr. 1987-88 Rs.'Geeta Batra 21,000Sarala Damani 21,000Ramlal Kocha 21,000'Asst. yr. 1987-88 Rs.1. Chandrakala Agarwal 26,0002. Gaurishankar Jalan 20,0003. Dilip Kumar Agarwal 20,0004. Bholanath Agarwal 20,0005. Mahesh Agarwal 20,0006. Shivraj Kundon...
Cit Vs. Major General Sir Shahaji Chatrapati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2003
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN45(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, viz. :'1. Whether income from property known as Shalini Palace at Kolhapur, purported to be gifted by the assessee by gift deed dated 27-9-1964 subject to the agreement between the assessee and the donee dated 27-9-1964 could be included in the assessees total income 2. Whether the gift deed dated 27-9-1964 by which assessee gifted Shalini Palace to Chhatrapati Shivaji Co-operative Education Society, had to be considered with the agreement of the same date between the assessee and the donee society as part of the same transaction and whether in view of the said agreement there could not be said to be a gift to the donee absolutely until the conditions in the agreement were fulfilled 3. Whether on proper interpretation of the gift deed dated 27-9-1964 as also the agreement dated 27-9-1964 between...
Orex Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT425Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to deny to it the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 1/93 for the financial year 1995-96 on the ground that the aggregate value of clearance in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 3 crores, contravening one of the conditions subject to which such exemption was available. In reply, the assessee contended that if the value of the goods which it cleared and received back in terms of Rule 173H were taken into account, the value of the clearances in the preceding year would not exceed Rs. 3 crores and entitled to exemption. The Additional Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), has not accepted the submission and held that the benefit of the exemption was not available. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented and filed written submissions. We have studies these and heard the departmental representative.3. The sole ground in the appeal is that sale takes place ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dujodwala Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT359Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order in appeal dated 11-4-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai. The operative portion of the order-in-appeal reads as follows : "On going through the facts of the case I hold that the Detention order has been issued in haste, resulting in needless paper work. It is laudable to recover revenue but to violate norms to recover the same ends in a futile exercise. For the recovery of the interest due, it would be appropriate for the lower authority to issue a Show Cause Notice and thereafter proceeding with the passing of the order. The detention order is a premature step and I, therefore, do not uphold the same but remand the case back to the lower authority to reconsider the amount payable to the Govt. and after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice act thereon.Against the aforesaid order the Departmental appeal has been filed in which the following grounds of appeal have been taken:- "The Order-i...
Western Hatcheries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC102Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Naresh Thacker, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the issue involved in this appeal relates to the classification of the impugned goods described under the relevant Bill of Entry as "outback environment system for poultry shed in knock down condition". The appellants seek classification under subheading No. 8436.29 whereas the department has classified the impugned goods under sub-heading No.8415.83. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the classification done by the Additional Commissioner of the impugned goods under sub-heading No. 8415.83 as air-conditioning machinery without incorporating a refrigerating unit. The following reasoning has been adopted by the Additional Commissioner for classifying the product under sub-heading 8415.83 :- "It is not in dispute that the items imported constitute a complete Unit and its function is to maintain a required temperature in a closed space may be a shed whether for poultry or cattle. The unit also consists of Heater, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »