Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Mrs. Sheila Anil Paul Vs. the Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD605(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A) XX. Mumbai dated 30/7/2002 and the only issue is in respect of claim of deduction Under Section 80-O of Rs. 15,13,593/-. This issue was agitated in the grounds of appeal reads as follows: "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the view taken by A.O. that appellant is not entitled to claim deduction Under Section 80-O of I.T. Act 1961. 2. Reasons given by CIT (Appeals) for confirming the view taken by A.O. that appellant is not entitled to claim deduction Under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are wrong, insufficient and contrary to facts and evidence on record. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that, appellant is entitled for the deduction Under Section 80-O of Rs. 15,13,593/-." 2. As per the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) dated 28/3/2002 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 the ...

Devang S. Desai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90ITD107(Mum.)

1. The above referred appeals have been filed by both the assesse's against the orders passed under Section 158BC(c) both dt. 25th Sept., 1996. In the case of Mr. Devang S. Desai the assessment of undisclosed income for the block period was worked out at Rs. 4,42,544 and in the case of Suryakant H. Desai, the total undisclosed income for the total block period assessed at Rs. 6,26,296. In both the appeals out of the four grounds raised during the course of hearing only ground No. 1 was pressed, therefore, rest of the grounds are dismissed and ground No. 1 being identical in both the appeals is hereby reproduced as follows : "1.1 The learned Dy. CIT erred in rejecting the claim of your appellant under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 63,760, in total disregard to the facts of the case and the relevant provisions of the IT Act concerning the assessment provisions under Chapter X1VB of the IT Act, 1.2 The learned Dy. CIT ought to have strictly followed the procedure for ...

Mrs. Umraodevi Sawatraj Golecha, Ex-partner of B.P.L. Synthetics and P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)76; 2003BomCR(Cri)913; 2004CriLJ521; 2003(4)MhLj529

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioners are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji in Criminal Case No. 372 of 1997 by which he issued process against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Respondent No.2 alleges that the petitioners 'opened a khata' with respondent No.2 and purchased cloth by informing him that they were having a partnership firm at 288, Kalbadevi Road, 4th Floor, Mumbai-400002. Respondent No. 2 was to recover a sum of Rs. 5,84,180/= from the petitioners by the end of 31.3.1997. He issued a notice to them through their Advocate Shri. N.R. Toshsnawal, a resident of Ichalkarnaji. The notice which was sent at the Mumbai address was received back by respondent No.2 as it was not accepted by the present petitioners. However, the notice which was sent to them at Balotra was received by them. As alleged by respondent No...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Citibank N.A.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)635; [2003]261ITR570(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj283

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. For the assessment year 1979-80, the Department has come by way of reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion on the question quoted hereinbelow :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surplus realised on the sale of land shall be treated as long-term capital gains and the surplus on the sale of building shall be treated as short-term capital gain ?'Facts :2. Some time during the accounting year ending December, 1975, the assessee purchased a plot of land admeasuring 3,930 sq. yards at Friends Colony, New Delhi. In the next year, the assessee started construction of a bungalow as a residence for the assessee's manager in New Delhi. On August 7, 1978, the assessee sold the entire property for Rs. 30,00,000. In the conveyance the price was allocated as follows ; for the land, it was Rs. 14,00,000 ; for the building, it was Rs. 9,00,000 and Rs. 7,00,000 was for the a...

Madhur Industries Ltd. Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom330; 2003(4)ALLMR551; 2003(5)BomCR534; 2003(3)MhLj841

ORDER1. By order dated 31st July, 2002 Commissioner was appointed. Plaintiffs were directed to file their evidence on affidavit before the Commissioner. The plaintiffs have so done. Even before cross examination could commence recording of evidence various objections were raised in the matter of evidence filed on affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. That is how the matter has come before this Court.2. Considering the issues involved and as it involved the large issue of interpreting under 18 as amended by the Acts of 1999 and 2002 of C.P.C. and considering the objections Counsel for the parties as well as other concerned were heard and the matter was kept for judgment as to the scope and ambit of under 18 and the Jurisdiction of this Court thereto.After the judgment was reserved the Apex Court has now declared the law as to the scope and extent of Order 18 by the judgment dated 25th October, 2002 in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, : AIR2003SC189 . From the judgme...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sudhir S. Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Bom)592; [2004]265ITR548(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.: 1. The above two appeals raise common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are taken up for final hearing together. IT Appeal No. 107 of 2001 is in relation to asst. yr. 1987-88, whereas IT Appeal No. 108 of 2001 concerns asst. yr. 1988-89. However, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts in IT Appeal No. 107 of 2001. Facts 2. On 7th Nov., 1990, notice under Section 148(1), as it stood at the material time, was given by the AO, calling upon the assessee to file a return of his income within thirty days. Hence, before the Tribunal, an additional ground of appeal was raised by the assessee to the effect that initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law and void as the notice dt. 7th Nov., 1990, was contrary to Section 148(1), as it stood at the relevant time. This argument was accepted by the Tribunal on 26th June, 1996. However, the law was amended by Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1996, retrospectively, w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, by which the expr...

Kishan Hanuji Jambhulkar (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1043; 2004(2)BomCR433

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner, a freedom fighter recognised by the State of Maharashtra, is claiming pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme ('Scheme' for short) which was introduced by the Government of India with the object of providing grant of pension to the living freedom fighters, their families and to the families of martyrs.FACTUAL MATRIX:2. The factual matrix emerging from the documents filed with the petition are that the petitioner had preferred a claim for grant of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension ('pension' for short), vide his letter-cum-application dated 24th July, 1981. In support of his claim he had produced two certificates from prominent freedom fighters as required by the scheme, certifying therein that the petitioner was underground during Goa Liberation Movement of 1955.3. The application preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent No. 2, Union of India vide letter dated 8th August, 1986 issued under the signature of the Under Se...

Akai Impex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT700Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Akai Impex Ltd., Mumbai was granted in 1993 three advance licences for import of stainless steel plates. The Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate issued to it with the licences provided that the goods which were liable for eligible for exemption from customs duty on importation under notification 204/92 it utilised in the manufacture of the resultant engineering product specified in the DEEC book or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the terms of the notification.This appellant imported in terms of these licences total quantity of 285.846 tons of plates from October, 1993 to October, 1994 and cleared them without payment of duty in terms of the exemption.2. The Customs department received some information that these goods had not been utilised in the manufacture of the product which was to be exported but had actually been sold without any permission from the licensing authority to three parties Poddar Tubes & Pipes Ltd., Ganesh Benzo Plast Ltd., and Bharat Steel and th...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The authorities below have disallowed modvat credit of Rs. 1,07,356.86 availed by the appellants herein on the strength of zerox copies of gate passes. According to the appellants who are represented by their Ld. Counsel, they had produced the certified copies of the gate passes, which have also been verified by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the credit was available on such certified copy, as per the Calcutta Collectorate Trade Notice No. 101/87 dated 23/04/87.2. According to the Ld. SDR Sri S.N. Shukla, the clear finding of the adjudicating authority is that the certified copies were never produced for verification and he therefore submits that the credit has been rightly denied.3. On hearing both sides and perusing of record including Trade Notice, I agree with the appellants that the credit is admissible on the certified copies of the gate passes as per the trade notice cited by them. However, since there is no material on record to show that such certified copies wer...

Krishna Export Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Each of the appellant before us imported consignments of goods stated to be synthetic rags. Examination of each of the consignments showed that it was not composed of entirely synthetic rags but was found to contain either serviceable garments or garments cut in two pieces. On this being brought to the notice of the importers, each of them agreed in writing to pay duty on the goods as if they were garments. Each of them also produced import licences to cover the importation as if they were garments. The Commissioner accepted this offer and ordered the goods to be classified as garments for purpose of import policy as well as for assessment to duty. He ordered that the value of the goods should be increased to US $ 0.35 per kilogram wherever the value declared was lower and any higher value declared was to be undisturbed. He ordered confiscation of the goods under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine, which should be on ...