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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M. Sagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)54; [2003]261ITR271(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. At the behest of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the matter under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for opinion on the following questions of law :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in valuing closing stock in respect of the film 'Anpadh' applying the provisions of Sub-rules (3) and (11) of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, rejecting the assessee's valuation based upon realisation in the market ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 57,587, the amount spent for publicity expenses, holding that the business of film production is an industrial undertaking falling under Section 37(3D) ?' Facts :2. In this reference, we are concerned with the accounting year ending March 31, 1979, corresponding to the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee was engaged in the business ...
international Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom410; 2003(3)ALLMR907; 2003(4)BomCR638; 2003(3)MhLj174
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present notice of motion for the following interim reliefs during the pendency and disposal of the main suit.(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the defendant, its servant or agents whatsoever be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from commencing and/or filing and or proceeding with any suit/proceeding against the plaintiff in any foreign court in respect of the reinsurance contracts arranged and placed by the defendant on behalf of the United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and/or retrocession contracts arranged and placed by the defendant on behalf of the direct/original reinsures relating to the insurance cover granted by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in respect of the Essar Refinery Project and/or to be restrained from joining the plaintiff as a co-defendant in any suit/proceedings filed against the defendant by any third party in any foreign court in respect of the same;2. The pla...
Ganu S/O Kisna Buradkar Vs. Manik S/O Kisna Buradkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR239; 2003(5)BomCR751; 2003(3)MhLj218
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner, who is a plaintiff, has initiated a suit for declaration and injunction against the present respondents-defendants claiming a decree for declaration, that the plaintiff is the owner of the field in question. The respondents-defendants appeared and filed their written statement on February 23, 1995. However, having realised that some important and material defence remained to be taken in the written statement and since the counter claim through the written statement was already made, the respondents moved an application on October 5, 2001 for amendment in the counter claim. This application for amendment of the counter claim is for the purpose of inclusion of certain property in the claim, containing that the property purchased on December 30, 1992, March 23, 1989 and April 10, 1989 though appeared to have been purchased by the petitioner in the name of hi...
Mohd. Sajjid Iqbal @ Sk. Imam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1381; 2003(3)MhLj654
1. Heard Shri Kasat, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Patel, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Achalpur on 16-9-2002, externing him from Yavatmal, Wardha, Nagpur and Akola districts, for a period of one year commencing from 16-9-2002 till 15-9-2003.3. The brief facts of the case are as under:(a) That on 10-1-2002, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Achalpur, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner by which he informed the petitioner that he had received a report dated 2-1-2000 from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, seeking the externment of the petitioner from Amravati district to Yavatmal or Akola districts. The notice then mentioned six offences which had been registered against the petitioner and which were as follows :(i) Crime No. 169 of 1996 registered for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 3...
Ghanshyam New Andram Parwani Vs. Nandlal Nagardas Vora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj945
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing and disposal by consent of the parties. 2. Present respondent - Nandlal initiated a suit claiming a declaration of dissolution of partnership, rendition accounts and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application, Exhibit-23, came to be filed at the instance of the present respondent-plaintiff claiming amendment to the Plaint by addition of parties as also claiming possession of the property in question. This application was rejected by the learned Judge of the trial Court, who dealt with the matter, by his order dated 24th November, 2000, and a revision against that order also came to be dismissed. The Judgment and Order passed in the Revision, since appeared to have not been challenged any further, can be said to have been concluded. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier amendment application, which stood rejected by order below Exhibit-23 on November 24, 2000, a specific amendment was soug...
Liverpool and London, Steamship Protection and Indemnity Assocn. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom417; 2003(3)ALLMR920; 2003(5)BomCR319; 2003(4)MhLj708
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The 4th defendant has taken out this motion for the following reliefs :--(a) That the suit be dismissed: (b) without prejudice to the above and in the alternative that the plaint be rejected. (c) without prejudice to the above, an order of arrest dated 21-6-2002 be set aside and or vacated and or superseded. 2. The plaintiffs have described themselves as a foreign organization incorporated under Foreign Laws and having their registered office as shown in the cause title, sought arrest of vessel m.t. symphony for Insurance Premia dues. The case of the plaintiff was that second defendant a foreign company are owners of the first defendant vessel. The third defendants are also a foreign company and/or owners/Managers of the first defendant vessel. Various vessels are being operated by the third defendant including defendant No. 1 earlier known as Arabian Lady as set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiffs that by contract of insurance made in ...
Ramdas S/O Mahadeo Pachgade Vs. Police Station Through Police Station ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)51; 2003BomCR(Cri)1345; 2003(4)MhLj720
1. Rule. Heard, by consent rule is made returnableforthwith.2. The petitioner is shown as accused in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.165/2002 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli.He is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. MH-33/A-403. Thevehicle is a new Mahindra Bolero approximate value Rs. 4.50 lakhs, which hasbeen seized in Crime No. 140/2002 by the respondent. The main offence is undersections 382, 325, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Penal Code read with Sections66(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act.3. The petitioner had filed an application for release of the vehicle beforethe trial Court and the said application was rejected on the footing that theapplicant was a habitual offender and the vehicle in question had been used byhim in the previous offence.4. I have perused the submission made by the respondent. There is nothingto indicate that the same vehicle was used by the offender for commission ...
Cit Vs. S.M. Sagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN137(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.At the behest of the department, the Tribunal has referred the matter under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to this court for opinion on the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income Tax Officer was wrong in valuing closing stock in respect of the film Anpadh applying the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (11) of rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules, rejecting the assessees valuation based upon realisation in the market ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 57,587, the amount spent for publicity expenses, holding that business of film production is an industrial undertaking falling under section 37(3D) ?'Facts2. In this reference, we are concerned with accounting year ending 31-3-1979 corresponding to assessment year 1979-80. The assessee was engaged in the business of film production. During the r...
industrial Tubes Mfrs. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC243Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to duty of the billets of copper that Industrial Tubes & Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. manufactured and used in the manufacture of pipes and tubes and the liability of the assessee, Vasant Nadar and T.U. Shenava, its employees to penalty. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held that the benefit of the exemption that was claimed for these goods under Notification 217/86 could not be granted since the condition subject to which the exemption is available that the final product is cleared on payment of duty have not been complied.He had denied the benefit before him of the exemption contained in Notification 178/86 on the ground that this claim has not been made. He thereafter proceeded to confirm the duty demanded in the notice and imposed penalties on the assessee and its employees.2. The contention of the common Counsel for the appellants is that the benefit of Notification 178/88 woul...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Notice issued to the Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd., the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, proposed to disallow Modvat credit that it taken on the ground that it was not taken on the duplicate copies of invoices but on the originals. The basis for this charge was that whilethe duplicate invoice was a carbon of the original in all respects, the 'tick' mark against that portion of the invoice showing it to be duplicate of the four copies of which it was indicates to be original was not a carbon copy of the duplicate. Thus, this was not the genuine duplicate copy. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and denied the credit. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that there was no basis for denial of the credit. Hence this appeal by the department.2. I have heard the departmental representative, the respondent being absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. I do not think that merely because the copy marking the duplicate does not have a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »