Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

icai Vs. S.R. Khanna

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN671(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.This reference is made under section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Mr. S.R. Khanna, the respondent herein, a Chartered Accountant, carrying on the practise of accountancy profession in the name and style of S.R. Khanna & 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. (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against the respondent, the council of Institute of the Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the council) 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 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The council c...

Vijay K. Jairath and Co. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. In this case, the appellants had declared the impugned goods as "Cotton Knitted Track Suit", which on verification was found to be not containing any cotton. The test report from the Deputy Chief Chemist indicated the goods to be "Dyed Knitted Fabric made of Polyester Filament and Spun Yarn". The case against the appellants is that, they mis-declared the description of the consignment to claim the DEPB at higher rate and also mis-declared the value to claim the DEPB on a higher price. The impugned order has been passed confiscating the impugned goods but allowing the same to be taken back to town on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has also been imposed.2. It is the contention of the appellants that the impugned goods are neither prohibited nor dutiable and hence in terms of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (EP). Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (155) ELT 4 (SC), the same cann...

York Refrigeration India Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC487Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeals have been filed against the order of duty o Rs. 10.78 lakhs penalty of Rs. 11.28 laks and fine of Rs. 10 lakhs for redemption of confiscation ordered of Bromine Chilling Refrigeration Plant fabricated by the appellants at the factory site of M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages as no duty under heading 84-18.10 was discharged on that plant. The other appellant is M/s Hindustan Coca Cola in where premises the plant was fabricated as per orders placed on M/s York Refrigeration India Ltd (earlier known as Sabroe Refrigeration India Ltd) by M/s Land Lease Design & Construction India Pvt. Ltd.). Duty is demanded and penalty imposed on M/s York Refrigerator India Ltd. 2. After considering, that Refrigeration Plants fabricated/erected at site by using duty paid material, are not excisable, as held in the case of M/s Virdi Brothers and Ors. 2001 (45) RLT 241 CEGATDelhi) : 2001 (97) ECR 263 (T) & by the Board vide Section 37B Order No.58/2002/CX dt 15.1.2002, wherein the Board ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bombay Dyeing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issues in these appeals is valuation of the captively consumed yarn under erstwhile valuation Rules 6 b(ii). (ii) Selling and distribution exports incurred on fabrics made from each yarn.CCE(Appeals) set aside the inclusion of costs of input duty paid on Fibre Advertisement expenses not incurred & therefore were not included in the costs of yarn, as they relate to & are incurred on fabrics.Interest on working capital obtained for other purposes was directed to be included on actual. It was also ordered to rework out the costs & matter was consequently remanded.3. Revenue & assessee, both are in appeal, Revenue for inclusion of selling & distribution expenses & Advertising expenses, while assessee on additions on account of interest on working capital. The issue of determination of Costing for Captive Consumption is no longer Res integra. Boards circulars No. 692/08/2003 dated 13/02/2003 modifying circular No. 258/92/96 dated 30.10.96 has to be considered...

Shri Ajival Gracious Vs. Smt. Dominica Charles Gracious, Since Decease ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR17

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The land in question is agricultural land bearing survey No.72 of Village Malwani in Taluka Borivali (Bombay Suburban District). Mrs. Dominica Charles Gracious was the said landlady in respect of the said land. It appears that in proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the original Respondent/landlady conceded the claim of the petitioner, on the basis of which, purchase price in respect of suit land was determined. Two years later, she preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, questioning the correctness of order passed under Section 32G proceedings. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits that since the landlady consented and invited the order, it was not open to her to file appeal. The Revisional Court, however, at the instance of the original Respondent/landlady reversed that decision and was pleased to set-aside the order passed by the Author...

Nivrutti Daji Narake and Namdeo Daji Narake Vs. Smt. Janabai W/O Piraj ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR294; 2004(6)BomCR621; 2005(1)MhLj288

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both, these Petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment, as issue involved is identical, between the same parties. The Petitioners and Respondents are related to each other. The husband of Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 2 was cultivating the suit land along with the Petitioners. He expired in 1956, whereafter, the Petitioners continued to cultivate the suit land; nonetheless, in the proceedings under Section 326 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), purchase price has been determined in respect of the suit land holding that the parties were in joint cultivation. Consequent to that order, purchase price has been fixed and Certificate under Section 32M of the Act has been issued in favour of the parties. Issuance of Certificate under Section 32M raised presumption that the Petitioners and Respondents were co-tenants and have now became co-owners in respect of the suit land. It is on that assumption, ...

Smt. Tehminabai E. Bandukwala, Through Her Power of Attorney Holder He ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR620; 2005(1)MhLj127

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated March 5, 1990 in Revision No. TEN.A. 8/88. The land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 357(p) situated at Village Nile-More, Taluka Vasai, District Thane. Petitioner is a landlord and the Respondents claim to be tenants thereof. Respondent No. 2 was minor on 1st April 1957. Nonetheless, in proceedings for determination of purchase price, the willingness to purchase was expressed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 by Respondent No. 1 as his guardian. On that basis, the ALT and Additional Mamlatdar vide order dated August 11, 1962 determined the purchase price and the tenants have been held to be deemed purchasers in respect of the suit land. That decision was challenged for the first time by the Petitioner in the year 1985. The Assistant Collector, however, dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground, being barred by limitation and no sufficient cause was show...

Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Bom)45; [2004]270ITR350(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Shah, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, and Mr. K.R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated January 8, 2003, for the assessment year 1997-98 relating to the appellant-assessee relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (No. 1) : [2001]251ITR401(Bom) , held that the Assessing Officer was not wrong in holding that in view of the fact that the assessee had loss from the export of trading goods, computed under Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC the ultimate figure of deduction under Sub-section (3) is negative profit (loss) and, therefore, the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not available to the assessee.3. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the loss suffered by the assessee from the export of trading goods while computing the deduction under S...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Darabkhan S/O Dafedar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ1410; 2005(2)ALLMR568; 2005(1)MhLj51

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent/appellant herein, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'MSRTC') under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') and thereby, challenged the award and judgment dated 25th February, 1993, passed in Claim Petition No. 90 of 1989, whereby, the total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of Petition i.e. 18th October, 1989 has been awarded with other directions. Therefore, this Appeal by the appellant. Facts:2. On 6-7-1989, one Zafarulla Khan died in the road accident near naka of Anjangaon to Lakhd Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. Therefore, two Claim Petition Nos. 90 of 1989 and No. 106 of 1989 were separately filed by the parents and brother i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein and by the wife i.e. respondent No. 4 herein, respectively, and they accordingly claimed separate compensation. The comm...

Dadarao Amrut Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1836; 2005(1)MhLj716

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Fulzele, Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of respondents. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner by this petition seeks extension of parole granted to him by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. Extension of parole is sought for two months from 17-5-2004, or in the alternative the petitioner has also prayed that the period from 16-5-2004 to 26-6-2004 i.e. the period during which he did not surrender may be treated as period of parole.3. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and his appeal .has been dismissed. The petitioner applied for parole for a period of one month from 15-4-2004 to 16-5-2004 to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on the ground that his wife was sick. The parole was granted by respondent No. 2 herein i.e. the Division Comm...