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.
Suiti Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC423
1. The appellant was engaged in the fabrication of various goods out of steel strips. It placed orders on the manufacturer of the steel coils, and directed the manufacturer to send the coils to cutters. The cutter cut the coils into sheets and sent the sheets to the appellant who thereupon took credit of the duty paid on the coils by their manufacturer. The notice issued to it proposed to deny the credit on the ground that what was received in its factory was different from the coil on which duty has been paid. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice and his order having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us.2. Counsel for the appellant contends that it followed the procedure contained in Rule 57AC(5) and that there is no contravention. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Dhimant Trading Co. and Ors. v. CC (appeal 3712/01 and Ors.).3. The departmental representative reiterates what the Commissioner (Appeals) has says.4. I...
A.T.E. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the A.C.i.T.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Mum.)186
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.3.93 of CIT(A)-XXV, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to disallowance of Rs. 11,62,131/- Under Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. The relevant facts, as mentioned by the AO at para 5 of his order, are that the assessee made payments of statutory liabilities after due dates as per the details given below:"i. a) PF employer's contribution Rs. 44,433/- b) PF employees' contribution Rs. 44,433/-ii. Gratuity fund for the calendar year 1985 and 86 paid during the year Rs. 3,74,265/- When asked to explain why the abovementioned deductions be not disallowed having regard to the provisions of Section 43B, the assessee stated before the AO that it relies on the notes given along with the return of income. The AO was of the view that since payments were made after the due dates as prescribed under the relevant Rules, the assessee was not entitled to deduction in respect of the abovementioned payments and th...
Naginbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Havel ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR490; 2003(3)BomCR522; 2003(3)MhLj678
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order dated 22nd July, 1992 passed bythe Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli inappeal affirming the order passed by the ResidentDeputy Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli on14.6.91 is impugned in the present writ petition.2. The controversy arises in the facts andcircumstances which we briefly narratehereinafter.3. Babarbhai Kaliabhai Patel-respondentNo. 2 herein was the Alvara holder of land bearingsurvey No. 654/1 of village Sayali. Thepetitioner Naginbhai Lallubhai Patel claims to beclosely related to respondent No. 2. Both areAdivasi and resident of same village. Videagreement dated 16.6.75, respondent No. 2 agreedto transfer his occupancy rights in the aforesaidland to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.950/-. The possession of land was given byrespondent No. 2 to the petitioner. The entireconsideration was paid by petitioner torespondent No. 2. It appears that some disputearose between the petitioner and respondent No. 2and the respondent No. 2 herein s...
Mudhusudan R. Talathi and Gulabchand R. Talathi Vs. Nandkumar Chintama ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom404; 2003(3)ALLMR683; 2003(5)BomCR782
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 29-11-2002 passed by the Court below on an application filed by the respondents for delivery of possession of the newly built premises in terms of the compromise decree dated 9-6-1998 passed by the Court below in Reg. Civil Suit No. 60 of 1997.3. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Nath and Anr. v. Ram Nath Chhittar Mal and Ors., reported in : [1961]1SCR600 and an unreported decision of the learned single Judge of this Court delivered on 29-1-2000 in Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1987 Prabhakar Raghunath Sansare and Ors. v. Laxmibai Gopal Shere and Ors., it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the rented premises in possession of the respondents was not delivered to the petitioners on or before 9-6-1998, as was agreed upon between the parties and as was als...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regula ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom398; 2003(5)BomCR206; 2003(3)MhLj84
A.P. Shah, J.1. These appeals under Section 27 of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998, hereinafter called the 'ERC Act', raise common issues of law and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The common issues relate to the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) to issue directions relating to the terms and conditions for supply of electricity energy fixed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and to the MSEB's right to claim transit loss of coal. Appeal No. 1 of 2001 : 2. This appeal is directed against the principal tariff order dated 5th May, 2000 passed by MERC determining the tariff applicable to various categories of consumers of MSEB for the period 2000-2001, the brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 4th May, 1999, MSEB submitted a proposal to the Government of Maharashtra for revision of its retail distribution tariff with effect from 1st June, 1999 under Section 49 read with Section 59 of the Electricit...
Chandrabhan S/O Dasrath Bagade Vs. NitIn S/O Jayramji Gadkari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj392
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Civil Application No. 7661/02 is filed by respondent No. 1 Under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), praying for dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground that it does not comply with the provisions of Section 83 of the said Act.FACTS2. The elections of the Maharashtra Legislative Council from Nagpur Division Graduate Constituency were announced in May 2002. The election programme was published which is reproduced hereinbelow : a) Last date for nomination : 5th June, 2002 b) Date of scrutiny : 6th June, 2002 c) Date of withdrawal : 8th June, 2002 d) Date of Poll : 23rd June, 2002 e) Date of counting : 23rd June, 2002 f) Place of counting : Nagpur3. Respondents 1 and 2 along with some other candidates filed their respective nomination papers for contesting the said election. Respondent No. 1 was an official candidate of Bhartiya Janta Par...
Champat Ganpatrao Ganjre Vs. Mahadeo Bhagwan Umak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR235; 2003(5)BomCR361
P.S. Brahme, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellant-original defendant No. 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 365 of 1979 against the judgment and decree dated 24th December, 1986 passed in the said suit by Joint Civil Judge (Junior Dn.), Wardha being confirmed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Wardha vide judgment and decree dated 7th February, 1990 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1987.2. Respondent No. 1 Mahadeo Bhagwan and respondent No. 2 Krishna Bhagwan, who are real brothers, have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration, injunction and possession of the suit property mentioned as open plot with plinth over it on the averments in the plaint as follows:Their father namely Bhagwan, admittedly, owned the suit property and after his death, on 9-2-1965, the plaintiffs succeeded to his estate. The said property was in possession of plaintiff No. 1. The suit plot was used by the plaintiffs for storing sundry materials and there was a temporary structure on it which was constructed from ...
A.T.E. (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: [2004]90ITD191(Mum)
ORDERK.K. Boliya, A.M. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31-3-1993 of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXV, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to disallowance of Rs. 11,62,131 under sections 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The relevant facts, as mentioned by the assessing officer at para 5 of his order, are that the assessee made payments of statutory liabilities after due dates as per the details given below:'(i)(a)PF employer's contributionRs. 44,433 (b)PF employees' contribution Rs. 44,433(ii)Gratuity fund for the calendar year 1985 and 86 paid during the year Rs. 3,74,265(iii)Employer's contribution for Superannuation fundRs. 6,99,000'When asked to explain why the above-mentioned deductions be not disallowed having regard to the provisions of section 43B, the assessee stated before the assessing officer that it relies on the notes given along with the return of income. The assessing officer was of the view that since payments were made after...
The A.C.i.T. Vs. Smt. Hansaben B. Mehta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2004)90ITD44(Mum.)
1. These appeals one by the revenue and the other by the assessee, arise out of order dated 19.10.94 of the CIT (A) XIX, Bombay, pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The revenue has taken the following two grounds in its appeal in ITA No. 295/Bom/95:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in directing to tax discounted amount of interest received in the previous year itself from National housing Bank on accrual basis in stead of on receipt basis." "On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Breberage of Rs. 1,50,000 paid to the Brokers for sale of the rights in Fiat.4. The learned representatives of the parties have been heard, their arguments considered and records persued.6. Apropos Ground No. 1 above. The relevant facts are these. The assessee is an individual. She derives share of profit from M/s.associated Chemical Corporation...
The Poona Merchhants Chamber Through President, Shri Madanlal S. Nahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR455; 2003(3)BomCR519; (2003)IIILLJ373Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. Aney, learned Senior Counsel, for Petitioner, Mr. Vanarse, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.2. On 23rd July 1973 Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (fort short 'Mathadi Act of 1969) was made applicable in the areas of Pune Municipal Corporation for the scheduled employment stated therein with effect from that day itself. The Notification dated 23rd July 1973 reads thus:'INDUSTRIES AND LABOUR DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya, bombay-32, 23rd July 1973MAHARASHTRA MATHADI, HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE ACT, 1969.No. UWA-1473/180589/Lab-IV - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) act, 1969 Mah. 30, the Government of Maharashtra hereby appoints the 23rd day of July 1978, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »