Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Mohan Bhanudas Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2945; 2004(3)MhLj624

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused through jail. Heard Mrs. Ruchita Dhru, advocate, appointed by the Court to represent the accused in this appeal. Criminal Application No. 4818 of 2003 is for condonation of delay. The judgment under challenge is dated 18-1-1992 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. There is obviously delay of more than nine years. But the prayer of the accused in main appeal is not touching the merits of the matter or challenging his conviction or sentence as such. The prayer in the appeal is that the accused has been convicted in two cases by two courts and awarded sentences of ten years. Both the sentences should run concurrently. It is for this limited purpose Appeal No. 400 of 2002 is filed by the accused through jail. As such looking to the prayer made, the delay is condoned. Criminal Application No. 4818 of 2003 is disposed of.2. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2002 is concerned, it is admitted and, by consent, taken u...

Ador Technopack Ltd. Vs. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Bom)500; [2004]271ITR50(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the notice dt. 28th March, 2003, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short) and the proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice.The facts :2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under :The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and factory at Nasik (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee' for short). On 29th Nov., 1996, the assessee filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1996-97 and claimed depreciation @ 25 per cent in its tin packaging unit. The assessee, during the assessment proceedings, filed bills showing purchases of raw material backed by the certificate of the chartered engineer certifying such purchases.3. The respondent No. 1 issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In response thereto, all material documents with necessary information together with relevant evidence in support of the claim of depreciation in 't...

Ador Technopack Ltd. Vs. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN16(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.This petition is directed against the notice dated 28-3-2003 issued under section 148 of tile Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice.The Facts :2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nut shell, are as under :The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and factory at Nasik (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee'). On 29-11-1996, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 and claimed depreciation @ 25% in its Tin Packaging Unit. The assessee, during the assessment proceedings, filed bills showing purchases of raw material backed by the certificate of the Chartered Engineer certifying such purchases.3. The respondent No. 1 issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In response thereto; all material documents with necessary information together with relevant evidence in support of the claim of depreciation in Tin Packagi...

Multiline Circuits Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of printed circuit boards falling under chapter sub-heading 8534.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicant failed to discharge duty liability by 15^th of the following month for clearances effected during the previous fortnight.The Deputy Commissioner ordered forfeiture of this facility to pay duty on fortnightly basis as the applicant failed to discharge duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and ordered that the applicant should discharge duty liability consignment-wise through account current. In spite of this order, the applicant discharged their duty by debiting CENVAT credit The duty paid through CENVAT credit during the months of November and December 2002 came to Rs. 1,36,722/-. The allegation therefore was...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suyog Corporation, Paras

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT558Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority.2. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Paras Plastics is a Central Excise registrant. It is a partnership firm. Shri Yogeshchandra V. Shah is one of its partners. The firm manufactures plastic articles on its own and also gets the goods manufactured by job workers by supplying them raw materials and moulds.3. In the same premises another trading firm, by name Suyog Corporation, operates. This is a proprietary firm. Shri Yogeshchandra Shah is the proprietor. Now, what this person does is to supply raw materials and moulds to the same job workers who work for M/s. Paras Plastics, gets his goods manufactured and sells them. The evidence does not disclose that the raw materials and moulds supplied by this trading firm to the job workers belongs to M/s. Paras Plastics. Evidence also does not disclose that goods which were returned by job...

Flexoplast Abresives (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (A) who in the impugn ed order, disallowed the claim for refund to the extent of Rs. 60,000/-. The appellant is a manufacturer of high coated abrasives, phenolic resin etc. He paid duty on phenolic resin under protest during the period 80-87. The Supreme Court held that phenolic resin is not dutiable and that is how the refund claim arose. The Additional Commissioner sanctioned an amount of Rs. 6.53 lakhs towards the refund of duty. The Revenue filed an appeal against this sanction. The Commissioner disallowed Rs. 60,000/-out of this amount. Hence this appeal.2. The Commissioner's reasoning is that the appellant started paying duty under protest only after 6.9.81 the payments made prior to this day cannot be considered as having been paid under protest. The duty paid during the period December 1980 to 6.9.81 is Rs. 60,000/-. The Commissioner held that since this amount is not covered under any protest letter. The claim for refund to thi...

Veer Vijay Silk Mills and A.S. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above stay applications came up for consideration on 16.1.2004, 4.2.2004 and 24.2.2004 but were adjourned on the request of the applicants. The matter was posted on 30.3.2004 again. The applicants filed an application for adjournment stating that the applicants' advocate was unable to attend the hearing. This is in spite of notice.Non appeared for the applicants. Perused the records and heard the DR.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicant, M/s. Veer Vijay Silk Mills, is a processor of manmade fabrics. The officers of Central Excise visited the premises of the applicant and, in the presence of one Shri Ashwin Shantilal Shah (the second applicant), a partner of the firm, conducted a search and recovered four challans indicating that excisable goods were removed from the Mill without payment of duty. The partner Shri Ashwin S. Shah admitted that processed fabrics were removed without payment of duty.3. The total duty evaded was worked out to be Rs. 1,43,128/-, The lower author...

Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. the Dcit, Spl.Rg.49

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)279ITR1(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the order of CIT (A) XXXIII, Mumbai dated 22/1/98 for the assessment year 1993-94.2. In the first ground the assessee has challenged the upholding of short term capital gain of Rs. 35,57,295/- on the sale of building and Rs. 1,59,74,715/-on the sale of plant and machinery. In the ground of appeal it was further challenged that no capital gain could be computed as per Section 45 and in the alternative long term capital gain should be computed after deducting the cost of acquisition as on 1/4/81.Further one more alternate ground was raised that the sale consideration of depreciable assets should be deducted from the entire block of assets of the company in terms of Section 50 of IT Act and not from the block of assets of Ahmednagar Unit alone.3. The facts in brief were that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of Sintered Bearings. The assessee also had units for manufacturing of Copper & Iron Powder at Ahmednagar. T...

Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95ITD380(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by, the assessee arising out of the order of CIT (A), XXXIII, Mumbai dated 22-1-1998 for the assessment year 1993-94.In the first ground the assessee has challenged the upholding of short-term capital gain of Rs. 35,57,295 on the sale of building and Rs. 1,59,74,715 on the sale of plant and machinery. In the ground of appeal it was further challenged that no capital gain could be computed as per section 45 and in the alternative long-term capital gain should be computed after deducting the cost of acquisition as on 1-4-1981.Further one more alternate ground was raised that the sale consideration of depreciable assets should be deducted from the entire block of assets of the company in terms of section 50 of Income Tax Act and not from the block of assets of Ahmednagar Unit alone.The facts in brief were that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of Sintered Bearings. The assessee also had units for manufacturing of Copper & Iron Powder at Ahmednagar....

Dy. Cit Vs. Mahendra M. Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Mumbai)1

ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.:This is an appeal filed by the revenue and is directed against the order dated 19-3-1999, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1994-95.2. By way of this appeal, the revenue has raised the following grievances:1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing the assessing officer to allow the claim of assessee regarding setting off capital loss of Rs. 24,17,049 suffered on sale of 991 shares of Maharana Mills Ltd., against the long-term capital gains of Rs. 11,54,464 earned on sale of shares of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. particularly because the sale of shares of Maharana Mills Ltd., which company was under liquidation was made to a family concern of the assessee thereby being devoid of any genuine commercial consideration.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in facts and in law in not taking...