Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

U.V. Benadikar Vs. N.G. Kulkarni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN678(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.This reference is under sub-section 5 of section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949).2. One Mr. U.V. Benadikar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint dated December 18, 1978 against Mr. N.G. Kulkarni (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) under section 21 of the Act of 1949.3. The complainant was articled clerk with the respondent for the period from June 15, 1976 to 24-11-1978. According to him he wanted to take transfer from the respondent but the respondent refused to sign on form No. 20A. The complainant alleged that when he went to the respondent for signing form No. 20A the respondent orally told him that he would sign on form No. 20A only if he (the complainant) gave him receipts for receipt of stipend without receiving the sarne. The complainant refused to do so and consequently the respondent refused to sign form No. 20A. The complainant levelled three charges of misconduct against th...

Cable Corporation Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.31/MV/2002 dated 19.2.2002 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held the finding contained in the order of the lower adjudicating authority and disallowed their appeal.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned Counsel Shri D.D.Gwalani submits that since they were using other inputs like copper, aluminium and insulating material along with cylindrical cork floats (input in dispute) they were reversing 8% of the cost of the product on account of modvat credit availed by them on the common inputs used in the dutiable and non-dutiable product, under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He further submits that they had no mala fide intention to evade payment of duty and they paid 8% of the value of the final product, therefore, penalty under Rule 173Q amounting to Rs. 35,000/- has been wrongly and illegally imposed on them. He further submits that they have already paid an amount of Rs. 1,52,440/- ...

Kirloskar Oil Engines Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.CEX.XI/JMJ/433/916/NSK/APL/2003 dated 26.12.2003 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that there is a suppression and the extended period is invokable, thus, attracting the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants have not challenged that part of the order of the original authority by which he has confirmed the total duty demand of Rs. 2,50,751/- (duty amount of Rs. 2,40,917/- + modvat credit of Rs. 9,834/-). Therefore, the challenge before me is a fairest invocation of the provisions of Sections 11AC and 11AB of the CESA, 1944.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri S.P. Sheth, Advocate submits that in the books of account the value had been written down to show the present net value of the inputs. These inputs were lying in the factory at the time of issue of first Show-cause Notice dated 20.6.2000. Another Show-cause Notice dated 20.4.2000 superceding ...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)1SOT60(Mum.)

This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1995-96. This is a Revision-Appeal. The revision order has been passed by the CIT Mumbai City-1, which is dated 12-1-2000.2. On examination of the Income Tax records, the CIT observed that the assessee-company has included Rs. 2,54,34,278 as business income on account of technical know-how and while allowing deduction under section 80HHC, the AO has included the said amount as part of assessees business profit. The CIT held the view that the income on account of technical know-how was not arising directly on account of export business and was falling under the category of commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipts of similar nature, the same was liable for reduction of 90 per cent. The AO has failed to do so. The said failure of the AO has resulted in granting an excess allowance of deduction under section 80HHC to the extent of Rs. 10,13,852. Therefore he set aside the assessment order and directed t...

The Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd., Through Its Senior Officer, Rajendra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ765; 2005(1)MhLj257

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The above petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus for transfer of investigation of MECR No. 4/2004, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code to the respondent No. 5, who is the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, DECB-CID, Mumbai. While opposing the said petition, the investigation officer Shri Mandar V. Dharmadhikari, Asst. Police Officer, attached to the Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai, had filed two affidavits and the same disclosed false statements on oath and prima facie appeared to have been made with the intention to mislead the Court and to get the petition dismissed at the admission stage itself. While granting the relief prayed for in the petition under the order dated 8-7-2004, a notice was directed to be issued to Shri Mandar V. Dharmadhikari as to why he should not be prosecuted and punished for contempt of Court for filing the said false affidavits ...

institution of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. S.R. Khanna

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR148; 2004(4)MhLj733

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This reference is made under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 ('Act' for short).2. Mr. S. R. Khanna, the respondent herein, a Chartered Accountant, carrying on the practice of accountancy profession in the name and style of 'S. R. Khanna and Co.' is a registered member of the Institution of Chartered Accountants of India ('the institute' for short). In view of the complaints made by the Director of Shree Industrial Rubber Works (P) Ltd. ('complainant' for short) against the respondent, the council of Institute of the Chartered Accountants of India ('the council' for short) had referred the said complaints to the disciplinary committee constituted under the Act for enquiry. The disciplinary committee on completion of the enquiry submitted its report to the council holding that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct set out in Clause 1 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act. The council considered the report of the disciplinary co...

Prabhakar Balasa Saoji Vs. Subhash Baburao Malode and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR127; 2005(1)MhLj306

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff/appellant herein against the original defendants/respondents herein and challenged the concurrent finding given by both the Courts below whereby, Suit of the appellant for possession was dismissed.2. This Second Appeal was admitted on the law point mentioned in the Memo of Appeal on 27-2-1992 out of which following substantial question of law have been argued by the appellant.'That the Exh. No. 119 should have been held as proved by the learned Additional District Judge in view of the fact that the attesting witness Govind had categorically deposed that the agreement at Exh. No. 119 was executed by Annasa in favour of Balasa and the same was attested by him and not considering the evidence of Govind by both the Courts below resulted into illegality and perversity and therefore, the judgment and order of the both the Courts below is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.T...

Chimabai Ganpatrao Shitole Vs. Bajirao Annasaheb Shitole

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR153; 2005(1)MhLj462

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, dated December 19, 1989, in Revision No. MRT/P/II/9/87 (TNC B 344/87). The land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 5/4 of village Dahitane, Taluka Daund, District Pune. The predecessor of the petitioner herein was the owner and the predecessor of the respondents herein was the tenant in the suit land. As the predecessor of the respondents was in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the tillers day, proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were initiated. The authority, however, disposed of those proceedings by order dated May 29,1960 by recording that the tenant remained absent, for which reason the purchase had become ineffective. Consequent to the said decision, the landlords initiated proceedings under section 32-P of the Act for restoring possession of the suit land. As action for restoration commenced, the tenant rushed to the Sub-Divi...

Yeshwant Mahadeo Chavan Vs. Kohinoor Mills No. 1

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)ILLJ339Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. Petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order dated April 26, 2001 passed by the Labour Court before the Industrial Court. That Appeal was filed on or about August 22, 2003. The petitioner had also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. By an order dated April 7, 2004, the Industrial Court was pleased to dismiss the application for condonation of delay, and consequently the appeal stood dismissed. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Industrial Court in a matter of condonation of delay, did not apply the correct test laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katji : (1987)ILLJ500SC : It is therefore submitted that non-application of correct test in the matter of condonation of delay amounts to failure on the part of the Industrial Court to exercise the jurisdiction and consequent...

Arun Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)73; 2005CriLJ1044

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. Khare, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Lanjewar, learned A. P. P, for the respondent.This criminal appeal is against the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 93/1987, dated 28-2-1990 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. For 7 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for 9 months.2. The incident which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellant took place on 26-7-1987 at about 4.00 p.m. in noon in the vicinity of Paunar near Water Works of M. I. D. C. The appellant -- Arun Nimbalkar resident of Paunar was serving in M.I.D.C. at Paunar. The complainant-Anandrao Sawai (P.W. 4) is the father of prosecutor Vaishali (P.W. 1). On the date of occurrence Vaishali along with her friend Savitri (P.W. 2) went to M.I.D.C. area near Water Works for bringing plants of flowers. They plucked some plants from ...