Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)63; [2003]262ITR662(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj473

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Department has come by way of above two references under Section 256(1) of the IT Act for our opinion on the following questions for the asst. yrs. 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1980-81. These two references raise common questions of law and fact and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, however, we reproduce hereinbelow the facts in IT Ref. No. 414 of 1988.Facts2. Assessee is SBI. It carries on business as stipulated under Section 32 of State Bank of India Act, 1955. When UTI was set up under the Unit trust of India Act, 1963, initial contribution was sought from RBI, IDBI, LIC, SBI, etc., The initial capital of UTI was Rs. 5 crores. SBI was the initial contributor to the extent of Rs 75 lakhs. A certificate of contribution was also issued by UTI on 6th April, 1964. During the asst. yr. 1976-77, UTI distributed its income and in the course of distribution, SBI received Rs. 442. According to SBI, this amount was recei...

L.R. Patel Family Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)255; [2003]262ITR520(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Department to reopen assessment vide impugned notice dt. 28th March, 2002, under Section 148 of the IT Act, this petition has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this petition, we are concerned with alleged escapement of income for asst. yr. 1995-96.Facts2. M/s L.R. Patel Family Trust was owning a flat bearing No. 14B in Sterling Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai, which was handed over to the beneficiaries when the trust was put to an end. This was on 14th April, 1994. Subsequently, on 14th Sept., 1994, the said flat was sold for Rs. 4.81 crores. Under the above circumstances, the AO has purported to reopen the assessment by invoking Section 45(4) of the Act. According to the AO, on the dissolution of the trust, capital assets came to be distributed to the beneficiaries and, therefore, profits arising from the transfer of such capital assets by way of distribution was chargeable to tax as the income of ...

Siddharth Holding Pvt. Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Companies A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR232; 2003(6)BomCR857

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In all 12 writ petitions and two Civil applications were placed for heading which concern the same parties, involving common issues. Accordingly, I proceed to decide all the 12 writ petitions and two civil applications together. Five writ petitions have been filed by the Saidale Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and four writ petitions have been filed by the original Disputants before the Co-operative Court. Whereas, three writ petitions have been filed by the other members of the Society, apprehending that, as a consequence of the order passed by the Appellate Court, they are likely to be affected. The two civil applications are filed for interlocutory directions in the pending writ petitions.2. Briefly stated; the said society was registered on November 28, 1962 as a tenant co-partnership housing society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 with the object to purchase plot No. IA/566 and IB/565 of Mazgaon division or any other plot or plots with...

Dhirendra Bhanu Sanghvi Vs. Icds Limited Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR82(Bom); 2003(5)BomCR161; 2003(3)MhLj536

ORDERA. P. Shah, J. 1. These three Notice of Motions involving a common question of law have been referred to the division bench by Chandrachud J. The common question of law is whether an Insolvency Notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, can be sustained on the basis of an arbitral award that has been passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In all the three cases arbitral award has been passed against debtors who have filed these motions and the arbitral award had not been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the basis of the award, Insolvency Notices came to be issued by the Petitioning Creditors under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. These notices are impugned on the ground that the arbitral award is neither a decree nor an order within the meaning of Section 9(2) of the Act and that, therefore, such an award cannot form the foundation o...

Ganesh Kisanrao Mahalle Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1052; 2004(1)BomCR458; 2003(3)MhLj843

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the records. 2. The petitioner challenges the notice dated 5-3-2003 issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the date of the special meeting of Murtizapur Panchayat Samiti called for discussion and decision on the no confidence motion against the Chairman of the Samiti has been changed from 14-3-2003 to 21-3-2003. Originally the notice fixing the date of such special meeting was issued on 3-3-2003 pursuant to the requisition submitted by eight members of the said samiti. The said requisition was submitted on 3-3-2003 itself. It is the contention of the petitioner that considering the provisions of Section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', the Collector has no authority, either to postpone or adjourn the special meeting or to change the date of such meeting once convened and hence the impugned notice dated 5-3-2003 is bad in ...

Rohit Kumar Arora and anr. Vs. Indravadan R. Shah and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003CriLJ3610

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Shri Mohite submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint, against the petitioners that either of them signed the said cheque. He further submitted that there is no allegation in the complaint that they were liable to be punished in the capacity of the Directors of the Company of which they are Directors. He contended that they are not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and therefore, the learned Magistrate should have considered all these facets and should have refrained from issuing the process against them. He further submitted that as it has been done, the action taken by the Magistrate becomes illegal, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.P.G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd., reported in : (2001)10SCC218 . He prayed for quashing of the order of issuing the process.2. Shri Saste opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application by submitting that the order which is being impugned is correct...

Ramesh Narayanrao Dewar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Stati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1632; (2003)105BOMLR184

R.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant had filed a complaint against the respondent No. 2 under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code for having set fire to the thorny compound wall of the applicant. Respondent No. 2 was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola for offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Respondent No. 2 had filed appeal before the Court of Sessions and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola vide judgment dated 6th December, 1997, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on respondent No. 2. This is how the applicant who was original complaint, has come to this Court in revision against the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola.2. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that a well considered judgment of the Trial Court in which ...

L.R. Patel Family Trust Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN720(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.Being aggrieved by the decision of the department to re-open assessment vide impugned notice dated 28-3-2002 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, this petition has been moved under article 226 of the Constitution. In this petition, we are concerned with alleged escapement of income for assessment year 1995-96.Facts2. M/s. L.R. Patel Family Trust was owning a flat bearing No. 14-B in Sterling Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai which was handed over to the beneficiaries when the trust was put to an end. This was on 14-4-1994. Subsequently, on 14-9-1994, the said flat was sold for Rs. 4.81 crores. Under the above circumstances, the assessing officer has purported to re-open the assessment by invoking section 45(4) of the Act. According to the assessing officer, on the dissolution of the trust, capital assets came to be distributed to the beneficiaries and, therefore, profits arising from the transfer of such capital assets by way of distribution was chargeabl...

Salim AnnuruddIn Shaikh @ Kalya Vs. Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Po ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1413; 2003CriLJ2396

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Mr. Naresh Khandelwal alongwith Mr.Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. I.S. Thakur,Add.P.P. for the State and detaining authority. 2. The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1)of the Maharashtra Prevention of DangerousActivities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders& Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, (hereinafter referredto as the M.P.D.A. Act) by detention order dated15.4.2002. The grounds of detention are of the evendate. The detention is challenged on number ofgrounds, however, Mr. Naresh Khandelwal alongwithMr. Tripathi restricted himself to the ground No.5(xiii) and other grounds. Since we are allowingthis petition on ground No. 5(xiii), we do notthink it necessary to consider other grounds. Wewill be considering one C.R. which is made basis ofthe detention order and affects public order videC.R. No. 542 of 2001 registered at Saki NakaPolice Station. 3. So far as the facts pertaining to the C.R.are concerned, they are given in the grounds ofdetention...

White Silco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By orders passed on 20.12.01 on the stay application filed by the applicant, the Tribunal directed a deposit of duty of Rs. 1 lakh out of amount of duty required to be deposited of Rs. 2.35 lakhs, such deposit to be made within a month from the receipt of the order and compliance to be reported on 21.2.02. On that day, the applicant was absent and unrepresented. The application which had been filed by the applicant, showed that Rs. 50,000/- had been deposited, and requested time for a month till the end of the financial year 2001-02 to deposit the amount."The Appellant assure your Lordship to deposit the said balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the first week of April 2002." Although no specific reasons had been given in view of the fact that half of the amount had been deposited and a specific assurance of the applicant, the Tribunal passed orders providing a further time of 10.4.02 for deposit of the amount. On 16.4.02 when compliance was to be reported, there was nobody although i...