Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

ito V.D.B. Taraporevala Sons and Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT123(Mum.)

The above mentioned ITAs were decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31-3-1986. The assessee in its appeal before CIT (A) had disputed the addition made on account of payment of Secret Commission. Secret commissions claimed by the assessee are Rs. 1,31,029, Rs. 1,22,407 for the assessment years 1979-80 & 1980-81 respectively. It was the case of the assessee that only 1/4th secret commission could be disallowed while computing total income. The reliance in this regard was placed on the past practice as per decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee. It was the case of the revenue that the decision of the Tribunal was not accepted by the revenue and Special Leave Petition was pending before the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessing officer disallowed the entire commission. The CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved, the department disputed the said deletion before the Tribunal and Tribunal following its earlier years' orders confirmed the view...

Tolani Bulk Carriers Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)278ITR238(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai and relates to the assessment year 1994-95.2. The first issue relates to the allowability of claim under Section 33AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Section 33AC of the Act, dealing with the reserves for shipping business, as it stood at the relevant point of time, reads as under: - 33AC. (1) In the case of an assessee, being a Government company or a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of operation of ships, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of an amount, not exceeding the total income (computed before making any deduction under this section and Chapter VI-A), as is debited to the profit and loss account of the previ...

Arjun Gangappa Kore Vs. Nirmal Bhagchand Bothra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)ACC217; 2005ACJ1119; 2004(6)BomCR630; (2005)107BOMLR885; [2005(104)FLR661]; 2005(1)MhLj179

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sangli dated 3.12.1996. The Appellant, who is the injured workman, is aggrieved by the judgment and order which directs the opponents, namely, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 23363/- towards compensation, Rs. 11681/- towards penalty and 9% simple interest on the amount of compensation from 19.8.1991 which is the date of the accident till deposit. A further direction is given that after the deposit is made, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- should be paid to the appellant and the remaining should be invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank.2. The appellant was working as a driver on a motor truck owned by Respondent No. 1 While driving the Vehicle on 19.8.1991, the appellant met with an accident as the front tyre on the right side of the truck burst. The appellant was grievously injured and was removed to a hospital at karad. He had susta...

Shri Shailesh Harilal Poonatar Vs. District Collector of Stamps and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom29; 2004(4)ALLMR479; 2004(6)BomCR28; 2005(2)MhLj738

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.2.2004 passed by the District Collector, Kolhapur, inter alia, directing the petitioner to make good the deficiency of stamp duty by properly classifying the release deed under Article 25(b)(5) of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Some of the material facts in the present case briefly stated are as under:-2. Ms. Kantaben Harilal Poonatar was the original purchaser of the property bearing Plot No. 50, City Survey No. 517-A/-, E Ward, Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur and a bungalow built thereupon. The said property which was known as Poonam bungalow was acquired by the said deceased Kantaben Harilal Poonatar on 1.9.1965 under a registered sale deed. On 17.7.1985, the said deceased Kantaben Poonatar executed a will conferring the right, title and interest in respect of the said property on the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 Smt. Kantaben Poonatar subsequently expired.3. In accordance with the s...

Madhukar Raghunath Bhave Vs. Wyawahare and Sons and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR261; 2005(1)MhLj19

A.S. Bagga, J.1. This second appeal filed by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-9-1990 passed by II Additional District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No. 83/1987. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal by the plaintiff are as follows.2. A suit was brought by the appellant original plaintiff against the respondents original defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 27,170/- as the price of goods sold and the interest thereon. It was the plaintiffs case that he is agriculturist. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and his partners- defendants purchased 87.35 quintals of jaggery from the plaintiff valued at Rs. 27,170/-. The price of the goods was not paid at the time of its delivery. The defendant No. 2 however promised to pay the said amount shortly. On insistence by the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 handed over a cheque for Rs. 11835.94 bearing No. 04284 dated 20-9-1983. The balance amount was agreed to be paid within 15 days. But...

Jayshree W/O Sharad Temdhare Vs. Sharad S/O Kamlakar Temdhare and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj897

A.P. Lavande, J.1. This Revision Application takes exception to the Order dated 30-12-2002 passed by the Family Court, Nagpur in Petition E-5/2001. The applicant is the wife of respondent No. 1. The applicant and respondent No. 1 got married on 14-4-2000. Thereafter, there were disputes between the applicant and respondent No. 1 and in January, 2001 the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent No. 1 in the Family Court, Nagpur claiming maintenance of Rs. 1500/- p.m. The respondent No. 1 was served in the said proceedings and on 28-7-2001 an ex parte order was passed against the respondent No. 1. On 20-9-2001 the application was field by the respondent No. 1 contending therein that the Family Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction since the applicant was not residing at Nagpur. The applicant field her say and thereafter the Family Court, Nagpur permitted both sides to lead evidence on the issue of jurisdiction and after consi...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Inderlok Hotels Private Li ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR853; 2004(6)BomCR571

1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Heard finally by consent of parties.2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th September, 2002 passed in Appeal No. 98 of 2002 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay confirming the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 2001 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court at Bombay in T.E. Suit No. 174/214 of 2000, whereby eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents herein came to be decreed. The. parties to the petition hereinafter are referred to in the same capacity in which they were before the trial Court. Background Facts : 3. The background facts leading to the present petition are as under:The petitioners/ original defendants, who are tenants in the action, are lessees claiming that a notice given by the plaintiffs, purporting to terminate their tenancy, was not a good one. The plaintiffs/ respondents herein, after determination of tenancy instituted suit against the defendants; for recovery of vaca...

Dilip R. Shah and Mercury Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as detailed in the annexure to this stay order arise out of different adjudication orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, covering different periods, involving identical issues.2. The duty has been demanded on the ground that the price charged by M/s. Mercury Laboratories Ltd. (MLL) for P&P medicaments manufactured by M/s. Mercury Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. (MAPL) and cleared to MLL, represents the correct assessable value of the goods, and not the price at the factory gate of MAPL on which duty was paid by MAPL, as MAPL and MLL are related persons, that at the time of clearance of the goods manufactured by MAPL to MLL, there is no sale but only a stock transfer of goods from MAPL to the duty paid godown of MLL for subsequent sale of the goods through C&F agents of MLL. The extended period of limitation has been invoked in order No. 13/BRC-II/MP/2004 dated 20.3.2004 (against which MAPL has filed appeal N...

C.C. Ex. Vs. Beta Cosmetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT255Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that the issue of classification, of entity termed as 'Clinic Plus Coconut Hair Oil' & 'Clinic All Clear Dandruff Hair Oil' which the appellant wants to be classified under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 Schedule heading 33.0570 & the Revenue in classifying under 330599 is well settled by the Tribunals decision in the case of AMIT AYURVEDIC & COSMETICS PRODUCTS (I) PVT LTD v. CCE Surat-II (2004 (168) ELT 354 Tri-Delhi) classification under heading 330510 is to be upheld since the entities have the same constituents viz. Coconut Hair, Petroleum Pareffin, Perfume & Dandruff eradicating Chemicals & also the same and use.2. The learned DRs valiant attempts to differentiate, by pointing out to certain other ingredients, listed, will not materially change the entity as understood & its classification. The finding of the Tribunal based on the constituents being Coconut Oil with added Perfumes giving it an identity of 'Perfu...

Datamatics Financial Services Vs. Jcit, Special Range-25

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Mum.)944

1. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed on behalf of the assessee in respect of order passed by this Tribunal ("A" Bench) dated 27^th January 2004 in ITA No. 2115 and 3480/M/99 2. It is the main contention of the assessee that while deciding the claim of the assessee with regard to deduction Under Section 80-IA, the Tribunal did not consider the existing jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd., 262 ITR 55 (Bom) (Order dated 30^th April 2003).3. Facts as mentioned in the afore-mentioned order of the Tribunal are not in dispute. Deduction Under Section 80-IA was claimed by the assessee in respect of its data processing activity at a large scale.It was the claim of the assessee that such activity is an industrial activity and the reports and results obtained out of data processing are equal to manufacture and production of an article or thing, therefore, the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction Under Section 80-1A. Reliance...