Mumbai Court October 2005 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.
Kishor Laxmidas Thakkar Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT586(Mum.)
Though the assessee has urged as many as six grounds, in fact it is divided into two. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the business activity of the assessee is that of profession and hence it is strictly income from profession and not from the business.Facts leading to the dispute, briefly, is that the assessee filed the return of income for the year under consideration on 8-9-2000, declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,96,770. Subsequently, the assessee filed the revised return on account of discrepancy in claim of rebate under section 88 of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny.The assessee is engaged in the business of carrying out as agent for octroi collections. In the original return as well as in the revised return, the assessee's source of income has been declared under the head 'Income from Business or Profession'. During the course of assessment, assessee filed a letter, stating that notice u...
Additional Director of Income Tax Vs. Ess Vee Intellectual Property
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT38(Mum.)
These four appeals, filed by the revenue, call into question the relief given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of demands raised on the assessee under section 201(1) read with section 195 and under section 201(1A) read with section 195 for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. These four appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve common, issues regarding assessee's withholding tax liability and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidate order.Revenue's grievance is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the fees paid by the assessee to the professionals abroad is "neither taxable under section 9(1)(1) nor under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act" and on that basis concealing the demands raised on the assessee under section 201(1) read with section 195 and under section 201(1A) read with section 195.To decide these appeals, only a minimal reference to the un...
Ubs Ag Vs. State Bank of Patiala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Bom73; 2005(4)ALLMR990; III(2006)BC254; 2006(1)BomCR62; (2005)107BOMLR815
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present three suits are filed under various Letter of Credit in U.S. Dollar. The terms and conditions of the said Letter of Credit covered by all three suits are identical and the defences raised in the present Summons for Judgment are also identical. All these three Summons for Judgment are therefore disposed off by this common order. 2. For the purpose of the present judgment the facts of one of the suit being Summary Suit No. 897 of 2000 is taken into consideration. The suit is filed for the recovery of U.S. Dollar 1,320,900 equivalent to Rs. 5,67,700/-. The claim arises on the basis of Letter of Credit. The few facts of the present case are briefly set out as under : 3. On 27.3.98 the defendant issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit for the sum of U.S. Dollar 1,320,900 in favour of the plaintiff bank. The said Letter of Credit was issued at the instance of company known as M/s. Hamco Mining and Smeltings Ltd and the beneficiaries were M/s. Forbevia S.A. The sa...
Jeles Education Society and the Head Master, Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR944; 2006(1)BomCR65; (2005)107BOMLR730; 2006(3)MhLj349
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 232 of 1993 has been filed by the Education Society which runs the school in which the concerned teacher was employed. Writ Petition No. 10576 of 2004 has been filed by the concerned teacher. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 232 of 1993 who is Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 10576 of 2004 will be referred to as the 'School' and the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 232 of 1993 who is the Petitioner No. 10576 of 2004 will be referred to as the 'teacher'. 2. The teacher was employed in the school from 7.12.1987 upto 30.3.1988. He belongs to other backward classes. He was appointed in a vacancy which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category as his appointment was upto the end of the academic year 1987-88. His services came to an end at the end of that academic year on 30.3.1988. An appeal was filed by the teacher in the School Tribunal immediately after he was terminated from service. This appeal was decided b...
German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR708; (2006)202CTR(Bom)369; [2006]287ITR485(Bom); 2006(1)MhLj517
V.C. Daga, J.1. These petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the notices dated 15.9.2003, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), seeking to re-open completed assessments of the petitioner-assessee for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, along with orders dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6(3), Mumbai, rejecting the objections taken by the petitioners to reopening their completed assessments.2. Parties to the petition are same; issue involved is identical; challenges to the impugned orders are common; so this common judgment shall dispose of both petitions.The facts necessary to appreciate rival contentions are taken from Writ Petition No. 619/2005, wherein assessment year involved is 1998-99.The Facts:3. The petitioners are the public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products and other formulations. The return of income for th...
Apollo Paper Mills Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR108; (2005)107BOMLR683
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Why the petitioner should be saddled with the warehousing charges for the inordinate delay on the part of the Customs authorities in finalising the assessment of the goods imported by the petitioner. In the alternative, why the Central Warehousing Corporation (C.W.C.) should not be directed to waive/bear the warehousing charges is the question raised in this petition. The petitioner, accordingly, seeks a writ directing the Customs department to bear the demurrage charges or in the alternative seeks an order directing the C.W.C. to waive the demurrage charges in respect of the goods imported by the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are that in the year 1995, the petitioner wanted to set up a paper manufacturing unit at Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Jhagadia, District Bharuch, Gujarat by importing second-hand machinery from a company in U.K. at a concessional rate.3. Under the prevailing Export-Import Policy, import of second hand machinery at a concessio...
Godrej Soaps Ltd. and Vasant Narayan Gogate, Senior Vice President (Fi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC137(Bom)
1. The petitioners, M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd., Mumbai have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the amendment to Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('Act' for short), by Maharashtra Act No. IX of 1989 ('Act No. IX of 1989) with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 1st January, 1960, contending it to be illegal, invalid and ultra vires the constitution of India.Factual Matrix:2. The factual matrix depicts that petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing and selling of soaps, toiletries and fatty acids, etc. The petitioners purchase expeller groundnut oil and soyabean oil from other dealers in Maharashtra; who are registered under Section 22 of the Act. the petitioners also purchase such oil from dealers located in different States of the country.3. According to the petitioners, the oil so purchased is edible. It can be used for human consumption without refining. However, with a view to find out a bette...
Mr. Agnelo Barreto and Mrs. Zalia Barreto Vs. Mr. Xavier Fernandes,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR113
N.A. Britto, J.1.The defendant nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No.250/91/B have filed this Second Appeal which was admitted by the Order of this Court dated 2762003 on a substantial question of law, which reads as follows:' On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Appellants are entitled to continue in the suit structure to which they were shifted before demolition of the old ancestral house, till such time they are given alternate premises by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 irrespective of their claim for mundkarship of the old ancestral house'. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit, inter alia, for the eviction of defendant nos.1 and 2 from the suit premises which was referred to as suit tenement no.1. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners in possession of the suit property known as 'Correalem Morod' surveyed under Chalta No.12 of P.T. Sheet No.153. In the said property there was a big residential house which has been demolished by the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1...
Basf (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. W. Hasan, Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Bom)198; [2006]280ITR136(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated February 28, 2001, passed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai City-I, Mumbai rejecting the revision petition filed by the assessee and thereby confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated July 14, 2000, rejecting the application for refund of tax deducted at source ('the TDS' for short).The facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under :3. The BASF (India) Ltd. ('the assessee' for short) had entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. BASF AG, Germany, on July 16, 1996, for increasing the capacity of its existing plant for manufacturing expandable styrene monomer from 3,576 metric tonnes to at least 73,000 metric tonnes and also for obtaining the improvements/developments made by the collaborator relating to the actual process, methods, technical information and know-how for the manufacture and s...
Rajiv Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ581; 2006FAJ135
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners are the directors of a company called 'Dharampal Satyapal Limited' (for short, 'the said Company') incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its main office at Delhi and Godown /office at Anjur Road, Rahnaj Bhiwandi, Thane. The said Company is the manufacturer of panmasala and is selling the same under the brand name 'Rajnigandha' all over India.2. The controversy in the present writ petition revolves around the panmasala 'Rajnigandha'. The Government of Maharashtra by its Notification published in the official gazette dated 23/7/2002 banned distribution and the sale of panmasala in the State of Maharashtra for a period of five years from 1/8/2002, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment in Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR2004SC4057 struck down the said Notification. The State of Maharashtra, thereafter by an order dated 29/1/2005 have decided to permit the manufacture and sale of gutka an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »