Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Markwell Hose Industries Pvt. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)403

appellate-company sought for the remedy for availing the deductions as it had incurred expenses for the benefit of the workers. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the remedy lay under section 153(3) of the Act.According to section 153(3), the direction of Tribunal could be given effect by reassessing or recomputing the income of assessee. When a statutory authority had a power to do something then it had statutory corresponding duty to exercise such powers whenever circumstances warranting exercise of such powers existed. Held: On the facts of the case, where the Tribunal had given a finding that the deduction on account of expenditure incurred on land for use by workers was to be allowed in the year(s) in which the plots were finally transferred to the workers, the AO had the power and, therefore, the inherent corresponding duty under section 153(3) to recompute the income of that subsequent year to give effect to the Tribunal s finding.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee an...

Artist Tree (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD603(Mum.)

1. In this appeal, against CIT(A)'s order dt. 18th Feb., 1999 and in the matter of processing of income-tax return under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1996-97, assessee has raised the following effective grounds of appeal: "The learned lower authorities have erred in holding that the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 244A of the IT Act, at Rs. 50,674 only (for 13 months) as against the claim of the appellant at Rs. 89,655 (for 22 months). The reasons assigned for the said short allowance are wrong and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act. Issues relating to allowability of interest being of a highly debatable nature, the AO is not competent to reduce the amount of interest in proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961." 2. Heard the parties, perused the records and considered the applicable legal position as also factual matrix of the case.3. The short point requiring our adjudication is whether or not the CIT(A) was jus...

The State of Maharashtra (at the Instance of Shri S.B. Jadhav, Food In ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2780

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Appeal is against Judgment and Order dated March 11, 1987 in Regular Criminal Case No. 26 of 1984, acquitting the Respondents of. the offences punishable under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The prosecution case is that the complainant P.W.1 H.B. Jadhav, Food Inspector along with P.W.2 Dilip E. Chivate visited the shop of Respondents and collected a sample of tea powder from accused No. 1 for the purpose of test and analysis after disc losing the identity of P.W.1 and the purpose of visit. Accused No. 1 sold tea powder weighing 450 grams for Rs. 9/-, which was purchased by P.W.1, for which, the accused No. 1 issued receipt on the letterhead of Swastik Machinery Stores (Exhibit 19). The said receipt bears signature of the Panch P.W.2. The complainant P.W.1 gave Form No. VI as well as notice under Section 14-A of the Act. The tea powder sample purchased from the accused No...

Venkatapathyd Krishna Murti Vs. V. Srinivasan and V. Srinivasan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR783; 2004(2)MhLj507

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Notice of Notion is taken out by the plaintiff/petitioner to have the caveat filed by the defendant dismissed and to process the above petition as if it is uncontested.2. The plaintiff filed the above petition for grant of letters of administration with the Will and Testament of his brother one Venkatapathy Ramnath (hereinafter 'the deceased') annexed. The defendant is the son of one V. V. Ramnath a predeceased brother of the deceased.3. The petitioner's case is that the deceased died on 20th June, 2001 leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 28th June, 2000. No executors having been named in the Will, the plaintiff filed the petition pursuant to Section 232 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925. Under Section 232, when a deceased has made a Will, but has not appointed an executor, a universal or residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the Will and letters of administration with the Will annexed may be granted to him of the whole estate, or of so much t...

American President Lines Ltd. and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Po ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom162; 2004(4)BomCR809; 2005(1)CTLJ125(Bom)

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel submits that facts in both the suits and both the notice of motions are similar except change of dates and numbers of containers. It would therefore be, convenient to refer to the facts in suit No. 3609 of 2003.2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a shipping company. The plaintiff No. 3 was agent of the plaintiff No. 1 till April, 1995 and plaintiff No. 2 has been appointed as its agent since Feb. 1998. The defendant No. 1 is the Port Trust constituted under the Bombay Public Trust, 1879 and functioning under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The defendant No. 2 is shown as 'Notify party/Intermediate consignee' in the relevant Bill of Lading. Mohammed and Nassari Co. WLL are consignors who shipped the goods (21 containers of steel scrap) through the defendant No. 1, to Mumbai Port under a Bill of Lading dated 26th June, 1993. Goods were to be delivered to the order of the shipper and name of the defendant No. 2 was only shown...

Subhadrabai Dattatray Gaykar Vs. Assistant Director of Town Planning, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR679; 2004(4)BomCR121; 2004(2)MhLj1087

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the notice dated 26th February 1997 issued by Respondent No. 1, who is Assistant Director of Town Planning, Kalyan Municipal Corporation. The notice is issued under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP Act' for short). The notice informs the Petitioner that she had applied for development of the concerned parcel of land on 24th July 1992. That time she had not furnished necessary papers of ownership concerning the property. The notice alleges that she has not produced the correct papers and obtained the permission to construct as per the earlier order of the Respondent No. 1 dated 24th August 1992. That permission was being cancelled under Section 51(1) of the MRTP Act. The notice calls upon the Petitioner to remove the construction, failing which the Municipal Corporation will remove it. A question is raised in this petition with respect to the p...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Maharashtra Agro Industries Development ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136STC152(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has raised certain questions of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Since the issues raised in all these references are common, all these four references are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts in the case of Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and the decision in that case will apply to all other cases.3. The questions raised for the opinion of this Court in all these references read as follows :S.T.R. No. 15 of 2000 and S.T.R. No. 3 of 2002 :'Whether the activity of mixing fertiliser in different proportion and selling them after granulation amounts to manufacture within a meaning of Section 2(17) of the Bombay Act?'S.T.R. No. 5 of 2000 and S.T.R. No. 2 of 2000 :'Whether on the facts and in the circum...

Crosslink Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Order No. C-I/2864/WZB/2003 dt. 14.11.2003 the Bench directed predeposit of the entire duty demand of Rs. 7,94,269/- holding inter alia that the material on record was not sufficient to determine whether the fuel and oil were in the vessel's machinery so as to hold that they would be considered to form an integral part of the vessel and holding inter alia that the declaration of the master of the vessel for the inventory of stores, oil etc. on board the vessel, filed before the Tribunal did not show the location of the tanks in which the fuel and oil, on which the demand has been confirmed, were located. The applicant seeks modification of the above order by stating that they have since been able to obtain copy of survey report which would show where the tanks in which the fuel and oil, on which the demand of duty has been confirmed, were located.2. On hearing both sides and carefully going through the survey report of 27.12.2003, it is very clear that the surveyor has not bee...

Concept Pharma Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT187Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The appellants imported 500 kg. of Doxycycline HCL and paid customs duty of Rs. 3,67,682/- through DEPB credit and additional customs duty of Rs. 2,12,740/- by cash. The impugned goods were subjected to chemical test in the factory of the appellants at Aurangabad when the same was found to be sub-standard. The Modvat credit of the additional duty was reversed the impugned goods were re-exported to the supplier.Subsequently, free replacement was received which was cleared by paying additional duty of Rs. 2,12,483/- in cash. Since two of the DEPBs had expired by then, credit of Rs. 1,15,261/- was utilized from another DEPB to pay the customs duty. The appellants filed a refund claim for DEPB amount of Rs. 3,67,682/- and additional duty of Rs, 2,12,740/-.The said refund claim has been rejected by the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner stating that there is no provision of refund of debit made under DEPB scheme an...

Ravindra and anr. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)BC1

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants Mr. Ravindra Liladhar Rathi and Mr. Rajendra Liladhar Rathi/legal representatives of the original defendant No. 2 Mr. Liladhar Gopilal Rathi, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur in Interlocutory Application No.376/2002 in Original Application No. 161/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the applicant Bank namely Bank of Maharashtra to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 2 Liladhar Gopilal Rathi. The applicant Bank filed Special Civil Suit No. 573/1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for recovery of Rs. 21,56,992-04 ps. The matter got protracted there only without the defendants filing their written statement in the Civil Court. The matter was then transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai and was retransferr...