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.
Parikh Petrol Chemical Agencies Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR187; (2003)183CTR(Bom)243; [2004]266ITR196(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj656
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('I. T. Act' for short) dated 31st May, 2001 as well as the notice of hearing dated 18th June, 2002 issued under Section 143(2) of the I. T. Act. The basic contention raised in this petition is that the notice under Section 148 of the I. T. Act issued for A. Y. 1994-95, beyond the period of 4 years from the and of A. Y. 1994-95 is without jurisdiction and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside.3. The facts having bearing on the subject matter of the present petition are as follows :-- The petitioner is a private limited Company and is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services in the field of petroleum produces to a Russian Government owned Company. The petitioner is assessed as a Compa...
Bhor Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)248; [2004]267ITR161(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge the action of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vide notice dated 3rd July, 2002 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to reassess the petitioner's income for the Assessment year 1996-97. FACTS:2. During the Financial Year ending 31st March, 1996 corresponding to the Assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner had introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme at its Borivli Plant and had incurred expenditure of Rs. 10,02,23,735/-. The said Scheme was approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act. In the Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31st March 1996, the petitioner had written off an amount of Rs. 33,40,818/- towards the said payment of Rs. 10,02,23,735/-. In other words, the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735/- was written off over a period of 60 months as per the Note in the Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31st March, ...
Smt. Sabira Aslam Sikwani Vs. Mohammed Yusuf HussaIn Proprietor of Ele ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR536; 2003(6)BomCR418; 2003(3)MhLj974
1. The Revision is directed against the order dated 3rd August, 2002 whereby the preliminary objection raised by defendant No.3 were rejected. The objection was as to the maintainability of the suit filed without issuing notice under Section 527 of the B.M.C. Act. On a Motion being taken out for injunction defendant No.3 raised preliminary objection holding that the suit was not maintainable considering that the statutory notice under Section 527 of the B.M.C. Act had not been served on defendant Nos. 1 and 2. the record would show that appearance was put up on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, the matter seems to have been argued at length by Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 before the trial Court. There is nothing on record to show participation by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either in support or opposition to the objection raised by the defendant No.3 which objection was heard as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1...
Hindustan Ferrodo Ltd., Now Known as Hindustan Composites Ltd., a Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR201; 2003(5)BomCR790; 2003(4)MhLj50
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable for the with.2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 2-5-2002 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No. 600 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial Court has been dismissed. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 28-8-2001 had decreed the suit filed by the respondents and had directed the petitioners to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, comprising of Flat No. 7, situated on the 4th floor in a building known as Kalpataru Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 39th Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. The said decree was passed in a suit filed by the respondents on the ground that under the agreement of leave and licence dated 11-8-1970, the petitioners were allowed to occupy the suit premises in consideration of compensation to the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Bom)508; [2003]264ITR180(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj614
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dt, 21st Jan., 2002, passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the assessee for asst. yr. 1996-97, the Department has come to this Court by way of appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. Facts 2. In this appeal, we are concerned with accounting year ending 31st March, 1996, corresponding to asst. yr. 1996-97, During the accounting year ending 31st March, 1996, the company claimed voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) expenses amounting to Rs. 10,02,23,735 incurred at Borivli plant. As per the annual report, VRS expenses was to be written off within a period of 60 months. In the past, the company had incurred VRS expenses for other plants and under the books of the company, such expenses were written off over a period of 36 months. Therefore, when for the accounting year ending 31st March, 1996, VRS expenses amounting to Rs. 10,02,23,735 incurred for Borivli plant came to be written off within 60 months, the officer di...
Shri P.K. Jain, Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Ranchhod Kishandas Chh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)90; 2003BomCR(Cri)1635; 2004(163)ELT418(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj384
1. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1986 in Case No. 298/CW/1986. The Respondent was charged alongwith one Ramchand Girdharilal for offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) and Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Trial however, proceeded against the Respondent only, as Accused No. 2 remained absconding.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.8.1985 Ashok J. Ratnani Officer of Customs, Bombay (P.W. 1) and Shri S.V. Sardar, Superintendent of Customs (P.W. 2) and other officers went to the residence of the Respondent. After complying the necessary formalities, search was taken of the premises in which the Respondent was personally present. During the search, certain foreign goods were recovered. Panchanama in respect of that seizure was prepared which is marked as Exh. P-1. It is the prosecution case that while the said search was going on, Accused No. 2 Ramchand Girdharilal arrived at the premises with bag consisting of foreign...
Parikh Petro-chemical Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN574(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31-5-2001 as well as the notice of hearing dated 15-6-2002 issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The basic contention raised in this petition is that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued for assessment year 1994-95, beyond the period of 4 years from the end of assessment year 1994-95 is without jurisdiction and hence is liable to be quashed and set aside.3. The acts having bearing on the subject-matter of the present petition are as follows :The petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services in the field of petroleum products to a Russian Government owned Company, The petitioner is assessed as a company under the ...
Dhondiba Sakharam Thange Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR369
D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate holding for Mr. V.S. Bedre, Ihe learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.B. Warale, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent.2. This is an appeal preferred by the original claimant against the Judgment and Award dated 19th September, 1.987, passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in L.A.R. No. 30/1979.3. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to acquire the land belonging to the appellant situated at Tikhol for public purpose namely construction of minor irrigation tank. The above said notification was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 12th July. 1973. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the price of the acquired land and he passed the award on 27th March. 1978. He offered the price as determi...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shethia Audio Video Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT452Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), by which he has held that the bar of unjust enrichment will not operate against the respondents herein and therefore they are entitled to the refund of Rs. 1,06,826/- paid by them on 15-1-1998 in respect of clearances of pre-recorded video cassettes made between March to December, 1997, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeal itself. Hence we proceed to do so, with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts are that on 6-2-2001 the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise dropped the proceedings under show cause notice dated 17-6-1998 which proposed recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,06,827/-on pre-recorded video cassettes manufactured and cleared during the period March to December, 1997 and proposed penal action against M/s. Shethia Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. Proceedings were dropped by him on the ground that: (b) there is no manufacturing a...
M.D.S. Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri. J.H. Kurkure, ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the only ground for denial of credit in this case is that the appellants failed to avail the Modvat credit within a period of six months from the date of issue of the invoices in question. His contention is that the period involved in the present case is December, 1994 and at that point of time there was no requirement of availing of Modvat credit on capital goods within the period of six months. He also submits that the Show Cause Notice has only made allegation that the credit has not been availed within the stipulated period of six months on the duty paying documents whereas the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has totally gone on different footing, that the invoices issued by the original supplier cannot be considered as valid duty paying documents at all. The learned Counsel also relied on the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Circular No. 199/33/96-CX, dated 23-4-1996 to press his po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »