Mumbai Court March 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.
One-up Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.R. Singh, Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR856; (2003)183CTR(Bom)254; [2003]262ITR275(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A search and seizure Operation, under Section 132, was conducted on August 3, 2000, in the case of Shri Manoj Agarwal and his associate concerns. The papers found during the course of search and the investigation done during the assessment proceedings showed that Shri Manoj Agarwal used to give accommodation book entries of various kinds to the beneficiaries of the transactions. These were the allegations contained in the letter of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-II, New Delhi), dated September 18, 2002, addressed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai-IV. According to this letter, one such beneficiary was the petitioner, having its office in Mumbai and who was assessed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai-IV. According to the petitioner, it had acted as a sub-broker in five transactions of purchase and sale of shares, which resulted in profits to its clients, Friends Portfolio Private Limited. During the course of search, various contracts notes and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR334(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. For the assessment year 1982-83, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Department :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investments and, consequently, debiting disallowance of Rs. 11,82,35,007 ?' Facts : The assessee is a nationalised bank. The assessee-bank had in its possession, during the relevant assessment year, shares and securities worth several crores. The method of valuation followed by the assessee was to value investments at cost or market value whichever was lower. During the year of account, depreciation with regard to securities held by the assessee was to the tune of Rs. 11,82,35,007. The assessee-bank claimed deduction. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee-bank went in appeal to the Comm...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bank of America Nt and Sa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR504(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia , J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1981-82, the following two questions of law have been referred to us for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Question No. 1 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-bank was not liable to be taxed in respect of the amounts credited to Interest Suspense Account being interest on sticky loans and advances ?' Answer to question No. 1 : In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT : [1999]237ITR889(SC) , this question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Question No. 2 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in directing the Assessing Officer to allow head office expenses at Rs. 13,45,492 being average head office expenses and not the least of the three amounts mentioned in Section 44C of the Income-tax ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of America Nt and Sa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)251
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. In respect of asst. yr. 1981-82, following two questions of law have been referred to us for opinion under Section 256(1) of the IT Act 1961 :Question No. 1'Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-bank was not liable to be taxed in respect of amounts credited to interest suspense account being interest on sticky loans and advances ?'Answer to question No. 12. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT : [1999]237ITR889(SC) , this question is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Question No. 2'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow HO expenses at Rs. 13,45,492 being average HO expenses and not the least of the three amounts mentioned in Section 44C of the IT Act ?'Answer to question No. 23. For the purposes of clarity and convenience, Section 44C...
Shri Vasant Waman Pradhan Vs. Shri Dattatraya Vithal Salvi and the Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj487
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad-Alibag dated 26.9.94 in the matter of Regular Cri. Case No. 130/94 by which he dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for discharging him in view of provisions of Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for convenience).2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the controversy which resulted in the complaint in which the application was moved for praying the discharge. House No. 1349 situated at Alibag happens to be belonging to the present petitioner wherein respondent No. 1, according to him, was residing as tenant. The notice issued by Municipal Council, Alibag (Annexure H) shows that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Alibag asked the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Alibag to survey the said building and to find out whether it has come to the stage of dilapidation or ...
J. Rajmohan Pillai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Y.S. Vaze, Dy. Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj323
J.G. Chitre, J.1. This petition is heard and is being decided at an early date because it is concerned with collection of revenue and allied transactions. Shri Marwadi appears for the Petitioners. Shri Saste appears for State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is absent. None present for him.2. The petitioner is assailing the order passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Esplanade Court, Mumbai in context with Criminal Case No. 5871/S of 1990 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the complaint filed by Shri Y.S. Vaze, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Acquisition Range I, Bombay against the present petitioner. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the present petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s. Corromondal Indag Products India (P) Ltd., for purchasing the property situated at Maker Towers 'E', Cuffe Parade, Bombay-5 for price of Rs. 25,74,000/-. A notice was issued by the Revenue to petitioner in view of Section 269AB read with Rule 48 DD of the Inc...
Madhusudan Rajeshwar Malvi Vs. Mandakini Bhauravji Kamble Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR775
S.G. Mahajan, J.1. By this miscellaneous civil application the applicant, who is the original revision-petitioner is Civil Revision Application No. 402 of 2002, is seeking review of the judgment & order passed by this Court on 16th August, 2002 in the said revision application.2. The applicant is the tenant and the non-applicants are the L.Rs. of the deceased landlady. By the notice dated 26-5-1994 the landlady terminated the tenancy of the applicant/tenant with effect from the midnight of 10-7-1994 and 11-7-1994. The landlady thereafter filed a suit for recovery of possession, being Small Causes Suit No. 59/94, in the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Yavatmal held that the notice issued by the landlady was valid. He accordingly passed the decree for the recovery of possession and for payment of damages & mesne profits. The applicant/tenant thereupon preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1997 which came up for hearing befo...
Cit Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN716(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.For assessment year 1982-83, the Tribunal has referred to following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of the department :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of depreciation in the value of investments and, consequently, debiting disallowance of Rs. 11,82,35,007?'Facts2. Assessee is a Nationalised Bank. Assessee-bank had in its possession, during the relevant assessment year, shares and securities worth several crores. The method of valuation followed by the assessee was to value investments at cost or market value whichever was lower. During the year of account, depreciation with regard to securities held by the assessee was to the tune of Rs. 11,82,35,007. The assessee-bank claimed deduction. This was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee-bank went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who too...
One-up Shares and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Vs. R.R. Singh, Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN687(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.A search and seizure operation, under section 132, was conducted on 3-8-2000 in the case of Shri Manoj Agarwal and his associate concerns. The papers found during the course of search and the investigation done during the assessment proceedings showed that Shri Manoj Agarwal used to give accommodation book entries of various kinds to the beneficiaries of the transactions. These were the allegations contained in the letter of Commissioner (Central-II New Delhi) dated 18-9-2002 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-IV. According to this letter, one such beneficiary was the petitioner, having its Office in Mumbai and who was assessed by Commissioner Mumbai-IV. According to the petitioner, it had acted as a sub-broker in five transactions of purchase and sale of shares, which resulted in profits to their clients M/s. Friends Portfolio Private Limited. During the course of search, various contract notes and bills issued by the petitioners in favour of M/s. Frien...
Ramrao S/O Mahadeo Girhe and ors. Vs. Dr. Shrikant Jichakar, M.L.C. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR155
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocates for the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7. None present for respondent Nos. 8 to 19 though served.2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to non-compliance of the order of injunction passed by Trial Court on 3.2.1987, and interference in the administration of justice by producing fabricated orders of the Civil Court as well as that of the Apex Court before producing that before D.I.L.R. while in the course of execution of the decree of the Civil Court and thereby commission of acts amounting to Contempt of Court warranting punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.3. Few facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that the petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for partition against his two brothers namely Sadashiv and Gulabrao and the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur passed preliminary decree for partition on 30.4.1969...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »