Mumbai Court February 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. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR212(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our opinion under Section 256(1) by the Tribunal at the behest of the Department. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1978-79.'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the guarantee commission of charges of Rs. 5,91,015 paid to E.C.G.C. on commission of Rs. 8,37,862 paid to Tata Exports and on 75 per cent. of the proportionate administrative expenses of Rs. 2,54,356 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,983 made under Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act on account of entertainment expenditure incurred by the assessee ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excess price of sug...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)118
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our opinion under Section 256(1) by the Tribunal at the behest of the Department. The reference pertains to asst. yr. 1978-79.(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act on the guarantee commission charges of Rs. 5,91,015 paid to ECGC. on commission of Rs 8,37,862 paid to M/s Tata Exports and on 75 per cent of the proportionate administrative expenses of Rs. 2,54,356 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,983 made under Section 37(2A) of the IT Act on account of entertainment expenditure incurred by the assessee.?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excess price of sugar collected over and above the control...
Prakash B Paranjape Vs. Mr. K.G. Patil, Special Executive Magistrate, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1647; 2003(4)MhLj731
J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The Petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Dombivali Division connected with Chapter Case No. 78/1998, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the said Executive Magistrate for the said Chapter case proceeding. He was directed to furnish interim bond.2. Miss Mhaisapurkar submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind at all and used cyclostyled form for the purpose of passing the order. Therefore, the said act is illegal, and, therefore, it be quashed along with said interim bond.3. Shri Saste, A.P.P. vehemently argued and tried to justify the action taken by the learned Special Executive Magistrate and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.4. The learned Magistrate issued show cause notice in view of provisions of Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience). However, conveying the said order ...
Jitendra Vasant Mahadik Vs. Mr. K.G. Patil, Special Executive Magistra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1339
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The Petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Dombivali Division connected with Chapter Case No. 63/1998, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the said Executive Magistrate for the said Chapter case proceeding. He was directed to furnish interim bond.2. Miss Mhaisapurkar submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind at all and used cyclostyled form for the purpose of passing the order. Therefore, the said act is illegal, and, therefore, it be quashed along with said interim bond.3. Shri Saste, A.P.P. vehemently argued and tried to justify the action taken by the learned Special Executive Magistrate and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.4. The learned Magistrate issued show cause notice in view of provisions of Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience). However, conveying the said order t...
Prataprao S/O Punjaram Deosarkar, Regional Manager, Mahila Arthik Vika ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1416; (2003)105BOMLR893
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Heard Shri Laghate, learned Counsel, for the applicant, Mr. Ahirkar, learned A.P.P., for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Patil, learned Counsel, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.3. Both these applications involve common question of law and facts and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both these applications, the inherent power of this Court is sought to be invoked under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the prosecution of the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) and read with Rule 50 of the Prevention, of Food Adulteration Act and Rule (for short the Act and the Rule).4. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :On 15.12.1991 Shri S.B. Naragude, Food Inspector, visited Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Backward Boys' Government. Hostel. Chikhali (for short the Hostel), and took...
Search Chem Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT202Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 18,72,748/-, and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh demanded and imposed on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to take modvat credit of duty paid on that quantity of high speed diesel oil and gasoline received by it which was used in the generation of steam which in turn was used to generate electricity that was not utilised within the factory of production but sold to Gujarat State Electricity Board. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that by application of the provisions of Rule 57C, so much of the inputs as were used when the quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of products which is liable to duty or was exempted from duty will not be available as credit.2. The counsel for the applicant accepts that the applicant used fuel oils in its factory to generate steam all of which was used to generate electricity. A substantial portion of this...
Vinsons Vs. 3rd Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD267(Mum.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the AY 89-90 & 90-91. Interest charged under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is the subject matter of dispute before us.2. The facts of the case revolve in a narrow compass. The assessee is an employer. It filed annual returns of salary under Section 206 of the Income Tax Act 1961. On scrutiny of the same, the assessing officer found that the assessee, in his capacity as any employer, has deducted very negligible sum as income tax from the salary of its employees in the initial months of the year and deducted very high amounts of tax in the last few months. Therefore, the assessing officer was of the view that the assessee had failed to deduct correct amount of tax from the salary of the employees. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee but in the absence of any reply, the assessing officer presumed that the assessee failed to deduct correct tax in each month as required under Section 192(1) of t...
Dil Co. International Vs. Meso Private Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC515(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J. P.C. 1. Heard Ms. Antony for the Appellants. Mr. Shah appears for the Respondents. 2. The Respondents have filed a Suit contending that the Appellants are infringing their registered trade mark as also their copyright. They took out a Notice of Motion to restrain the Appellants from using a label with a caricature of a lady sitting near a window looking out at a man with a camel and a crescent shaped moon and also a seal. As far as the label is concerned, the learned Single Judge, who heard the Motion, accepted the submission of the Respondents that there was a marked similarity between the label used by the Appellants and the one used by the Respondents. He, therefore, granted injunction in so far as the label is concerned, which is annexed at Exhibit B to the Plaint. Asfaras the seal was concerned, the learned Judge formed the opinion after comparing two seals that there was a dis-similarity and, therefore, he did not grant interim relief sought. 3. Being aggrieved b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Manufacturin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Bom)64; [2003]263ITR140(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Assessment year 1978-79 :Question No. 1 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, initial contribution by the assessee-company of Rs. 1,28,228 to superannuation fund was a allowable deduction for the assessment year 1978-79 ?'Assessment year 1979-80 :Question No. 2 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 22,81,847 which paid by the assessee-company to its employees over and above the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act for the assessment year 1979-80 ?'Assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 :Question No. 3 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the limit prescribed under Section 80G(4) was not confined to 55 per cent. (50 per cent.) of 10 per cent. o...
Savalram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)106; 2003BomCR(Cri)1457; 2003CriLJ2831; I(2004)DMC339
R.S. Mohite, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused) for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 13-7-2001 passed by the Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2000, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34, Sections 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2. For the conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34, the accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer S.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. For the conviction under Section 304B, the accused is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years; for the conviction under Section 306 of IPC, he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for two years; and for the conviction under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, he is senten...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »