Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bajaj Auto Holdings Ltd. Vs. the D.C.i.T., Special Range 3
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: (2006)281ITR154(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.9.96 of CIT(A)-XVI, Mumbai. The first ground of appeal pertains to confirmation by the CIT(A) of levy of interest tax on the interest received on Bonds and Debentures amounting to Rs. 9,63,354/-.2. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in assessee's favour by the ITAT, Mumbai decision in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. JCIT -82 ITD 748. The ld. counsel also relied on the Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Laxmi Vilas Bank Pvt. Ltd. - 228 ITR 697. The ld. DR was fair enough to concede that the issue is covered as mentioned above.Accordingly and respectfully following the precedents, we hold that interest tax is not leviable on interest received on Bonds and Debentures. The AO is directed to give necessary relief to the assessee. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the DCIT in c...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD97(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a Public Limited Company and derives income from hotel business. Seven grounds have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. The same are disposed of as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 made under Rule 6B of I.T. Rules on the ground that expenditure on presentation articles which do not carry company logo was outside the scope of disallowance under Rule 6B.3. After hearing both the parties, we hold that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the Order of the Tribunal in the assessee company's own case for the assessment year 1988-89 vide order dated 9-8-2000 wherein in paras 2 to 5, the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 stands deleted. The case of the assessee further stands supported by the following judgments: -First, ITO v. French Dyes & Chemicals I. (P.) Ltd. [1984] 10 ITD 240 (Mum.) (SB) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ...
Bajaj Auto Holdings Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Special Range 3
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)95ITD356(Mum.)
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the DCIT in charging interest tax on interest of Rs. 5,96,921." It appears that there is some discrepancy in the quantum of interest which is claimed to be at Rs. 5,96,921, whereas in the order of the CIT(A), the quantum is mentioned to be Rs. 4,47,343. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee explained that the assessee received interest on inter-corporate deposits amounting to Rs. 14,47,290, the break-up of which is as under : The relevant facts are that in the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, the aforesaid interest of Rs. 14,47,290 was included in the computation of chargeable interest. The assessee had claimed that the aforesaid interest was earned on inter-corporate deposits and therefore it was beyond the purview of charge of interest tax. The assessing officer did not indicate any reasons for rejecting the claim. T...
Mahandrakumar S/O Moolchand JaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR702; 2004(3)MhLj474
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Chandrapur dated 27-6-1986 thereby ordering that the petitioner should deposit in the Government Treasury the evaded tax and surcharge of Rs. 67,349=75 plus penalty of Rs. 1,01,024=62 ps, totalling to Rs. 1,68,374=37 before 15-7-1986 and further ordering that on failure to do so, the amount will be recovered as per the provisions of Land Revenue Code.2. The facts in brief out of which the present petition arises are as under :--That the petitioner is a proprietor of one Mahavir Touring Talkies, situated at Warora, Tq. Warora, District Chandrapur. The petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 9-7-1986 under the provisions of Section 4B of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for 'best judgment'. The show-cause notice states that on various earlier occasions the petitioner's touring talkies was raided by v...
Abdul Ghaffar S/O Shaikh Jafar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj1143
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The applicant is an accused in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1995 pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. He challenges the proceedings filed against him, more particularly, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the ground that the investigation has not been carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as required under Rule 7 of the Act. The charge against the applicant has also been framed by the Trial Judge under Section 294 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). After framing of the charge, the applicant filed application dated 31-1-2000 before the Trial Judge, to drop the proceedings, under the Act, on the ground that the investigation in the case has been carried out contrary to Rule 7 of the Act. In the sai...
Shri Jagannath Tukaram Magar Vs. Executive Engineer, M.i.D.C. and V.M. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC227; 2004(4)ALLMR321; 2005(2)BomCR451; [2005(104)FLR551]; 2005(1)MhLj338
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This First Appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 16.8.1990. The appellant met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment on 3.12.1982. He was employed as a labourer by Respondent No. 2, who was the contractor of Respondent No. 1, the principal employer. After meeting with the accident, the appellant was hospitalised and thereafter it was found that he was not able to work at all and he had become physically handicapped as his movements were restricted on account of the accident.2. An application under workmen's compensation was filed on 25.10.1985 beyond the period of limitation. The Commissioner condoned the delay in filing the application and decided the application on merits. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. It was found that the workman had lost his earning capacity to the extent of 100% since the appellant was tot...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Yusuf InamuddIn Pirjade and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: III(2005)ACC214; 2005ACJ766; 2004(4)ALLMR312; 2005(2)BomCR415; [2005(104)FLR202]; 2004(4)MhLj364
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 24.1.1990. According to the Appellant-insurance Company, it is not liable to pay any interest or penalty on the amount due. The learned Advocate for the Appellant states that at the time of filing the appeal, the appellant has deposited the entire amount as awarded before the Commissioner as a precondition to filing the present appeal. While admitting this appeal, this Court has permitted the Respondent-applicants to withdraw the amount of Rs. 66,813/- which is the amount of compensation awarded.2. There is no dispute that the deceased workman was employed with Respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 was insured with appellant. An accident occurred on 24.1.1988 when the workman expired during the course of employment. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has held that the deceased was employed with Respondent No. 7 and 8 herein, and that the accident took place ou...
Dadarao Tukaram Kosare and ors. Vs. Shyam Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj553
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Second Appeal filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3, appellants herein, and thereby challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 7-2-1989, whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court dated 18-2-1986, was set aside and further declared that the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 herein, is entitled to withhold possession of the suit property except against the lawful transferee of plaintiff society.2. The Second Appeal was admitted on 5-7-1991 on the following question of law :'Whether the parties succeeding in the Trial Court can support the Judgment and Decree passed in their favour without filing a Cross objection only as regards the findings which are recorded against them by the Court, would be the substantial point for consideration in this appeal.'3. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The original plaintiff/society had brought this suit against the original defendants for possession and damages. The original defendants did not lead any...
Sunil Chhatrapal Kedar Vs. Y.S. Bagde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR38; 2004(4)MhLj620
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. Very small controversy is raised in this petition as to which defendant's should be allow to cross examine first, those who support the plaintiff or those who opposes the plaintiff.2. The petitioner herein, the Ex-Chairman, along with others Ex-Directors of the Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank, respondent No. 2 herein, are charge-sheeted under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively).3. An application has been filed by the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent Bank, after the completion of cross-examination of other respondents. The respondent No. 2 and other respondents have resisted the same basically, on the ground that, initially when the matter was fixed for the cross-examination there was no such objection from the petitioner, to proceed with the matter with such a mode of...
Khemraj S/O Bhayyalal Sharnagat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj1098
P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. Paliwal, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Lanjewar, the learned A. P. P. for the respondent-state.This is an appeal preferred by Khemraj Bhaiyyalal Sharnagat, challenging the judgment and conviction passed by the Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 3rd August, 2001 convicting him for offence under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to R. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further R. I. For one year.2. As per the prosecution case the incident which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellant took place on 28th February, 1998 at the house of one Tirwantabai (P.W. 8) who happened to be the maternal aunt of Prosecutor -Muktabai (P.W. 6). On the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix in the evening was in the house, when her maternal aunt - Tirwantabai had gone to the field and her husband had-gone to Bazar. Bablu Sharnagat who was co-accused along with appellant was known to the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »