Mumbai Court January 2004 Judgments

Dr. Mrs. Sudha Kankariya Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)404; [2004]270ITR296(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the CIT, Nasik, declining waiver of interest and penalties levied on the assessee under Section 273A of the IT Act, 1961.2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') and her husbandare doctors practising as Ophthalmologists at Ahmednagar. It is the case ofthe assessee that the assessee and her husband had kept certain deposits inAndhra Bank at Ahmednagar. On being advised by their consultant that thesaid deposits should be disclosed in their assessment, the assessee and herhusband transferred the said amount on 31st Jan., 1990, to their regularaccount with intention to disclose the same in the respective assessmentyears. The assessment year relevant for the purpose herein is asst. yr.1988-89.3. It is the case of the assessee that on 22nd Feb., 1990, the assessee's husband approached the ITO at Ahmednagar of his own free will and had made a voluntary disclosure before the AO (3rd respondent) an...

Sonu Electricals Vs. Amravati Municipal Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ131(Bom); 2004(3)MhLj543

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Shri N.W. Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a Proprietor of Sonu Electrical and an 'A' Class Electrical Contractor, having Licence No. 9324. Tender was floated by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited for the purpose of electrical works to be carried out under I.R.D.P. at Amravati. It is submitted that vide letter dated 2-1-2003 of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati petitioner was informed regarding the awarding of contract to him and was asked to report to the office within seven days from the receipt of this letter with various samples of sodium and mercury fittings. Shri Sambre, learned counsel states that the petitioner being a successful bidder, work order dated 30-1-2002 came to be issued in his favour for one year, which was expired on 28-2-2003. Shri Sambre, learned counsel contended that Municipal Council, Amravati vide show cause not...

Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR792; [2004]122CompCas231(Bom); (2004)4CompLJ492(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this chamber summons, the respondents pray for declaration that the rights of the claimants are governed by the sanctioned scheme dated October 30, 2002, read with order dated January 16, 2003 and are not entitled to recover any further amounts from the respondents under consent terms dated January 20, 2000 and July 31, 2000. The respondents further pray that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, appointed as receiver in the award/arbitration proceedings and execution proceedings be discharged, with directions to hand over formal possession of the hypothecated equipment back to the respondents.2. The claimants had extended loan facility to the respondents, in respect of which loan agreement dated October 17, 1994, was executed between the parties. Besides the loan agreement, memorandum of hypothecation of equipment, belonging to the respondents, was also executed. As dispute arose between the parties, the matter was referred to sole arbitrator, who, in turn, ...

Baban Tulshiram Latake Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC644

V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 13.1.1999 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 74/97, the appellant named above has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as verbally canvassed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before us.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence.3. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciation of evidence on record stated briefly is that the appellant-accused was married to the victim deceased Ranjana. She was harassed constantly by the accused and he kept on demanding good some of money, Rs. 40,000/- to be precise. Being harassed by constant ill treatment the deceased allegedly put herself on fire and committed suicide on 14.10.1996. Information regarding death of victim was given to her relations who came, s...

Smt. Rizwana NizamuddIn Shaikh Vs. Additional Collector (Encroachment) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR683; (2004)106BOMLR22

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Perused the records. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the Additional Collector (Encroachment/Demolition), Western Suburbs on the ground that the same is contrary to the materials on record and therefore liable to be set aside.2. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondents threatened to carry out demolition of the structure in question, the petitioner approached the City Civil Court and by order dated 15.6.1995 the said Court directed the respondents not to demolish the said structure without due process of law. Thereupon a notice under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner along with her reply dated 30.10.1995 produced certain documents in support of her defence. After hearing the petitioner, the Tahsildar (Encroachment), Borivali, passed the order dated 31.1.1996 holding that the petitioner had encroached upon Government land by constructing a hut ...

National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and anr. Vs. T.M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR148; 2004(5)BomCR381; (2004)106BOMLR563

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. In both these petitions, the petitioners challenge the judgments and order passed by the Industrial Court declaring the petitioners to have adopted unfair labour practice towards the respondents/workmen and further directing the payment of wages to the respondents/workmen with effect from 1995-96 with continuance of contract of employment. In the Writ Petition No. 260 of 2001 the petitioners have been directed to pay wages to the respondent (No. 2) holding that the petitioners have committed unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. In the Writ Petition No. 261 of 2001 the petitioners have been held...

Dr. (Mrs) Sudha Kankariya Vs. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN686(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Commissioner, Nasik, declining waiver of interest and penalties levied on the assessee under section 273A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) and her husband are doctors practising as Ophthalmologists at Ahmednagar. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee and her husband had kept certain deposits in Andhra Bank at Ahmednagar. On being adviced by their Consultant that the said deposits should be disclosed in their assessment, the assessee and her husband transferred the said amount on 31-1-1990 to their regular account with intention to disclose the same in the respective assessment years. The assessment year relevant for the purpose herein is assessment year 1988-89.3. It is the case of the assessee that on 22-2-1990 the assessees husband approached the Income Tax Officer at Ahmednagar of his own free will and had made a voluntary disclosure before ...

Jayant Mohanlal Doshi Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 7.8.89 to show cause to the Additional Collector, Vadodara Collectrate why penalty under Section 112(a) (ii) of the Customs Act 1962 need not be imposed for having abetted Shri R.P.Mehta, Shri J.R.Mehta, Shri H.R.Mehta partners of M/s Texto Plast Industries, Daman in the removal of Metallic Polyester Films imported and warehoused in the premises of M/s R.P. Industries, Daman on the grounds as made out in para 14(2) as follows :- "Shri Jayantilal Mohanlal Doshi, residing at 57-A, Gaurakshak Chal, Panaswadi, Bombay, had purchased from Shri R.P. Mehta, a quantity of 20,000 mtrs., of polyester tracing film in piece metal and thereafter disposed off the same in open market and thus abetted the act of illicit and improper removal of metallic polyester film from the warehouse premises, on which customs duty/additional duty have not been paid by the said "TEXTO" plast of Daman, rendering himself liable to penal action under Section 112(a) ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mek Engg. and Constructions (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) that the refund claim filed on clearances made during the period 27/04/89 to 02/06/89 were eligible, as the respondents could enjoy the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 having not crossed the 2 crores limits, in spite of the figures as per balance sheet for year ending 31/03/89, as the same was for a period of 15 months due to amendments in the Income Tax Act and change in financial year. The two refunds as sanctioned were not required to be recovered in view of the Boards instructions. The grounds taken in appeal are :- ii) Reliance on Boards telex by Commissioner (Appeals) was not called for.2. Heard Ld. DR. Respondents are absent in spite of repeated adjournment notices sent. We proceed to decide the issues. After considering, it is found :- a) There is no challenge to the finding of the Commissioner that the Balance Sheet being for a term over the period of 15 months and it is well settl...

Jyoti Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT396Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,69,762.50 confirmed on super enamelled copper winding wire falling under CETA sub-heading 8544.00 on the ground that the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 69/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended was not available as the products in dispute were not made out of specified inputs on which the duty of excise had already been paid at a rate not less than Rs. 6,200/- PMT as per the relevant condition under the notification, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur.2. The contention of the applicants that even though the inputs were non-duty paid, they are to be treated as having discharged appropriate duty liability, in the light of the language of CBEC Circular No.125/36/95-CX., dated 15-5-1995, is prima facie, not tenable as the circular in question refers to notification where the exemption has been extended to a specified goods provided that such goods have been made from othe...