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.
Gamma Rays Transmission Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT914Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri H.R. Shetty, learned Advocate for the appellants states that the appellants were a new manufacturer, who got themselves registered only in February, 1995. They failed to claim small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 till 1-8-1995. The small-scale exemption has been denied to the appellants invoking the last paragraph of the exemption Notification No. 1/93 which reads as follows :- "Notwithstanding the exemption contained in paragraph 1 of this notification, a manufacturer shall have an option for not availing of the benefit of the exemption contained in said paragraph and to pay duty of excise at the rate applicable to the specified goods but for the exemption contained in the said paragraph 1, subject to the condition that such manufacturer shall pay duty at the rate applicable but for aforesaid exemption on all subsequent clearances of specified goods made after availing such option, in a financial year in which such date of option falls." 2. The learned Counsel fo...
Dr. Vishwanath Marutirao Gaikwad Vs. Shri Dnyaneshwar Ramchandra Kotka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR25; 2003(2)BomCR463; 2003(1)MhLj288
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner who has filed a dispute underSection 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Co-operativeSocieties Act', Challenges the order dated 4.4.1989 ofthe Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Courtdismissing his dispute. The Co-operative AppellateCourt has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheldthe order of the trial Court on the ground that therespondent whose eviction is sought by the petitioneris a protected tenant under Section 15A of the BombayRents Hotel and Lodging House Rate (Control) Act, 1947and cannot be evicted under Section 91 of theCo-operative Societies Act.2. The petitioner, a member of respondent No. 2,Jawaharnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,Kolhapur, filed a dispute against the respondentDhyaneshwar Ramchandra Kotkar alleging that he isunauthorisedly and illegally occupying the premises ofrespondent No. 2 society, viz., block No. B-14, plotNo. 6/65.3. The petitioner has alleged in th...
Shri Durgashankar S. Trivedi, Vs. Shri Babubhai Bhulabhai Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom487; 2003(2)ALLMR565; 2003(4)BomCR626; 2003(2)MhLj576
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners. None for the respondent though served. The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent giving clear intimation that the matter would be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. None has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent. Apparently, the respondent has nothing to say in the matter.2. Making grievance about the growing tendency to postpone the decision on the objection to the admissibility of documents to the stage of final hearing of the suits and allowing the document to be exhibit without considering the objection to its admissibility and in violation of the provisions of law contained in Order XIII of Code of Civil Procedure as well as contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in that regard, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that the trial court has totally ignored that in terms of the provisions of law it is necessary for the parties to tender...
Relay Shipping Agency Ltd. and anr. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Bom)128; [2003]260ITR631(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Matter mentioned for urgent interim relief.Facts :2. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge notice dated December 24, 2002, issued by respondent No. 1 to the Branch Manager, Standard CharteredBank--bankers of the petitioners. The notice has been given under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the branch manager to pay to the first respondent an amount of Rs. 49,38,880 allegedly due from the petitioners as assessee in default on account of income-tax, penalty, etc. The facts preceding the impugned notice are as follows :(a) On December 2, 2002, the Tax Recovery Officer (respondent No. 1) issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act stating that an amount of Rs. 41.90 lakhs was due to the first respondent from DBC Sons (Bombay) Private Limited on account of income-tax. Under the said notice, the petitioners were required to pay to the first respondent amounts due from the petitioners to DBC Sons (Bombay) ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motichand Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)149; [2003]261ITR70(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Department has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal concerns assessment year 1990-91. The following question of law has been referred to us in this appeal at the behest of the Department.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the loss suffered on renouncing its rights entitlement to convertible debentures of Larsen and Toubro Ltd., ignoring the fact that the assessee was in receipt of Rs. 62,997 on account of sale of rights which was credited in the profit and loss account which was business income as these rights debentures were offered to the assessee in lieu of holding shares which were held as stock-in-trade and therefore any realisation/income which arose on account of stock-in-trade was definitely by way of income ?'Facts :2. For the assessment year 1990-91, the assessee claimed loss on the sale of rights debe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)350; [2003]261ITR45(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The Department has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1995-96. The following question of law arises for our determination in this case.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in discussing the Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), deleting the addition made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act as it then stood, relying on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. v. K. S. Pathania : [1992]196ITR55(Bom) , without appreciating the Board Circular No. 689, dated August 24, 1994 (see [1994] 209 ITR 75), which permits prima facie disallowance on the basis of the information available in the return, accounts and documents annexed to it ?'Facts :2. In the computation of the income for the assessment year 1995-96, the assessee-company claimed a loss of Rs. 17,74,85,826, after claiming e...
Citizens Forum for Scientific Development of Pimpri-chinchwad Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR85; 2003(3)BomCR760; 2003(2)MhLj479
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. P. Janardhanan, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. D, R. More, learned counsel, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Hitesh Jain, learned counsel, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.2. In the facts and circumstances, matter was taken up for final hearing.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation for an appropriate writ, direction or order to the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1, as also respondent No. 3, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, to implement Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (Octroi) Rules, 2001, with effect from January 6, 2002, i.e. from the date they ought to have been implemented in accordance with law.4. The petitioner is a trust registered under the Public Trust Act, 1950. It is also registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aim and object of...
Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)247; [2003]261ITR98(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. At the behest of the assesses the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961. The reference concerns the assessment year 1976-77. The question referred, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that depreciation allowance ought to be deducted while computing the total income for the purposes of deduction under Section 80HH ?' Facts : 2. In the return for the assessment year in question, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HH as follows : Rs.Profit as per profit and loss account77,96,076Less : Development rebate9,32,67768,63,3993. On this amount of Rs. 68,63,399, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80HH at the rate of 20 per cent., amounting to Rs, 13,72,680. 4. The said computation of the assessee was made, by placing reliance on Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act. According to the asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badridas Gauridu (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Bom)453; [2003]261ITR256(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The Department has come by way of an appeal against the order of the Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1992-93.Facts :2. The assessee-company carried on as business as export house. The assessee-company is an exporter of cotton. On December 30, 1992, the assessee filed its return of income showing an income of Rs. 1,13,100. The assessee had entered into forward contracts with the banks in respect of foreign exchange. Some of these contracts could not be honoured by the assessee for which it had to pay Rs. 13.50 lakhs, which was debited to the profit and loss account. The assessee claimed the same as business loss being payment made on account of cancellation of forward booking of foreign exchange with the banks in respect of export orders. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that the assessee had short sold the foreign exchange and that the payments made were not in the nature of damage...
Filmyug Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)395; [2003]261ITR263(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Since the issues effectively required to be answered in these two references are common, both these references are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the I. T. A. T.'), in these two references at the instance of the respective parties, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read as follows :I. T. R. No. 624 of 1987, Filmyug Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : Question No. 1 (At the instance of the assessee) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Sub-section (3D) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable in respect of the expenditure on publicity for sales promotion incurred by the assessee in the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81?' Question No. 2. (At the instance of the Revenue) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »