Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Sayyed Yahya Gholamy Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT401Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide his impugned order Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai have absolutely Confiscated foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 11,28,640/- and has also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.The said currency was recovered from the appellant, who was intercepted by the Customs (Preventive) Officers at the time of boarding Iran Air Flight at Chattrapati Shivaji international Airport, Mumbai on 17.08.2001. Part of the said currency was kept in the watch pocket of the trouser worn by him and part was recovered from inside sole of the shoes by removing the inner sole. The appellant in his on-the-spot statement recorded on 17.08.2001 admitted the recovery of the said foreign currency but could not give any satisfactory explanation for the lawful possession and export of the same. He admitted that he had an intention to smuggle the same out of India and in order to avoid detection, the same was hidden in the inner sole of his shoes. In his subsequent statement recorded on 14.0...

intersil India Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101ITD85(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it seeks to challenge CIT(A)'s order dated 13^th February 2000, in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the three grounds, namely - (a) that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of 'study and training expenses of Rs. 11,50,438; (b) that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of vehicle expenses of Rs. 76,316; and (c) that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 22,800 in respect of 'entertainment expense'. We will take up these three grievances one by one.2. As far as disallowance of disallowance of 'study and training expenses' of Rs. 11,50,438 are concerned, the material facts are like this. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,50,438 on account of study and training expenses. It was also noted that the said expense was incurr...

Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)93ITD7(Mum.)

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-Central-II at Mumbai, on 13-7-2001. The appeal arises out of the proceedings completed Under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act 1961.2. The assessee-company had filed its return of income on 31-12-1992.The return was revised on 6-1-1993. An intimation Under Section 143(1)(a) was passed on 25-1-1993. A refund of Rs. 1,87,43,157 including interest of Rs. 17,03,023 was determined as per the said intimation. The refund was partly adjusted against the demand due for the assessment year 1990-91. The balance-of the refund was paid to the assessee-company. The assessment was later concluded Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee-company appealed against the said order before the CIT(A). Certain modifications were granted by the CIT(A). The said modifications were given effect to the order passed on 12-12-1994, as a result of which a f...

Jagannath Ramchandra Sakpal Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ970

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Appellant was tried and convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Sanjana and has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Therefore, this Appeal against the order of conviction.2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. We have been taken through the testimonies of all the witnesses and the records of the case.3. The prosecutions case has been supported by PW-4 Jagannath and PW-5 Tippana being the eye-witness to the incident dated 20th February, 1998. On that day at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant while quarrelling with the deceased in his house, suddenly assaulted her with a wooden stick, almost on all parts of the body and especially on the head and torso. PW-4 Jagannath could see this incident as the door of the house of the accused was open. Alongwith the other, this...

Mukund Alias Shyamrao Kale Vs. Sahebrao Rodbaji Sable and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR473; 2005(2)BomCR164

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16-2-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, allowing Election Petition filed by the present respondent No. 1 against him under Section 144(1) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 73 of Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Election Rules).3. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that point involved is very short and the petition should be disposed of finally. Shri Patil, Advocate appears for the contesting respondent No. 1 while the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Respondent No. 2 is already served but nobody appears for them. Hence, the matter is taken up for...

M.S.E.B. Through Its Chief Engineer Vs. Narayan Wadguji Nagpure and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR190

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the employer/M.S.E.B. is challenging the order dated 31-7-1991 passed by First Labour Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULPN) No. 784/1989, granting relief of reinstatement with continuity and full back wages to respondent No. 1 employee and the subsequent order dated 10th July, 1992 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision, upholding that relief. The petition has been admitted for final bearing by this Court on 15-9-1992 and his reinstatement was not stayed. The stay granted is only to the payment of back wages, hence the respondent No. 1 is presently in employment. Advocate N.S. Bhoyar appearing for respondent No. 1 was not present yesterday and is not present today. Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. The facts in brief are : that the respondent No. 1 was engaged as causal labourer on nominal muster roll establishment from 1-6-1980 and he was asked to produce a document in s...

Porbuko Uma Mandrekar and Ors. Vs. Wencesslay Alex D'silva and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR825; 2005(3)MhLj586

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a defendants' Second Appeal, arising from Regular Civil Suit No. 203/88.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. By order of this Court dated 19-1-2001, this second appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law which read as follows :Where in view of the specific plea raised by the appellants (defendants), to the effect that they were tenants/deemed purchasers of the suit property, by virtue of the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, the Courts below could have proceeded with the suit and recorded a finding on the issue of tenancy?Whether in view of the specific plea raised by the appellants (defendants), that they were tenants/deemed purchasers under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, in respect of the suit property it was obligatory on the Courts below, to have stayed the suit and directed the appellants to obtain a declaration tenancy rights in respect of the...

Shri Nivruttinath Yatra Khajur Donation Trust Vs. the Sub-divisional O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR341; (2005)107BOMLR102A

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Petitioner trust has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dahanu Division, Dahanti and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, by which their application filed under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') seeking exemption certificate has been rejected. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected their application by his order dated 7.8.1989 holding that the trust was registered on 8.5.1969 while the respondent tenant became the deemed purchaser on 1.4.1957 and in view thereof the trust was not entitled for exemption certificate under Section 88-B of the Tenancy Act. The said finding of the S.D.O. was upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 31.7.1990.2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the lands in dispute were originally owned by one Namdeo Shimpi. It is not clear from the rec...

Bhagat Exports, K.S. Chasmawala, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II.2. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Kiran Syntex Ltd. is a manufacturer of twisted textvirised yarn. On physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw materials lying at the premises, the officers found stocks of POY in packed condition, POY on machine, texturised yarn, PFY A-grade made in Korea, bright PFY and yarn on TFO machines.Comparison of the stock found was made with the balance shown in statutory records. The officers also found 30 cartons of imported PFY A-grade made in Indonesia, totally weighing 15,120 kgs. valued at Rs. 10,58,400/-. No import documents supporting the said goods were produced. The said goods were seized under the Customs Act. During the course of investigation, Shri J.M. Godiwala, director of M/s. Sudarshan Tex Prints (P) Ltd., stated that they had purchased the said imported yarn through a yarn broker -whose office is situated in Surat and that the said br...

Modern Textiles Rayon and Silk Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is as regards refund of duty of Rs. 1,84,693/- paid by the appellant on Metallic Yam during the period 16.03.95 to 26.05.95. It is seen that prior to the said period, the appellant were not paying the duty on Metallic Yarn. With the issuance of notification 28/95-CE dated 16.03.95 duty was levied on Metallic Yarn at 20% ad-valorem. As such, under the direction of their jurisdiction Central Excise Authorities, the appellants started paying duty for Metallic Yarn. Subsequently another notfn No. 95/95-CE dated 26.05.95 was issued deleting Sr. No., of the notfn No. 28/91-CE dated 16.03.95 & with the issuance of the said notfn, the appellant against stopped paying any duty on Metallic Yarn manufactured by them.2. The appellants main contentions is that mere was another noftn. No.76/86-CE dated 10.02.86 which granted exemption to the 'Handicrafts'.As per the boards circular No. 56/2/95 - CX- I dated 25.05.95, it was clarified that man made Met...