Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Brief facts are narrated below.2. Jet Speed Audio (P) Ltd. (JSAPL) manufacture recorded audio cassettes (RCs) falling under Chapter Heading 8524.32 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. On 18-12-97, the Officers of Central Excise intercepted a tempo carrying 139 cartons of recorded audio cassettes. The cartons contained 27800 Nos of recorded cassettes duly packed in book case inlay card covers (IC covers). These inlay card covers are made of polypropylene. The goods in question were consigned to M/s. Magna Sound (I) Ltd. Investigation revealed two aspects - (a) the IC covers in which the RCs were packed were supplied by M/s. Magna Sound to JSAPL and (b) JSAPL has not included the cost of these IC covers in the assessable value of the audio cassettes. The RCs numbering 27800 were seized as they were found to have been under valued. During the course of investigation statements of the officers of b...

Ciba Specialty Chemicals (India) Vs. Cit -9

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT510(Mum.)

This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The appeal is directed against the Revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-9 at Mumbai on 7-12-2004.The assessee-company was earlier a division of M/s. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited. The division had its works at Goa-There was a labour dispute between the assessee and its workmen on a charter of demands.When the labour dispute was going on, the said division of M/s.Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited, was separated from the said company as an independent unit. The demerger scheme was approved by the Bombay High Court by its order dated 25-7-1997 pursuant to which the erstwhile division of M/s. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited has been converted to the assessee-company as a separate legal entity. As the company has become a separate legal entity severed from M/s. Hindustan Ciba Geigy Limited, the liability of labour dispute was inherited by the assessee-company.As the labour dispute was persisting for so...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pudumjee Agro Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR806; (2006)200CTR(Bom)671; [2006]285ITR301(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) was admitted on 7/1/2002 on the following substantial question of law: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer to allow deduction under Section 32AB to the tune of Rs. 88,44,445/- on the basis of profits earned by the assessee from its paper division alone, without considering the loss of the Agro Unit.' 2. The assessment year relevant for the present appeal is AY 1990-91. 3. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a public limited company carrying on business in two separate units namely paper division and agro division. Both these units of the assessee are 'eligible business' within the meaning of Section 32AB of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the assessee had maintained separate accounts for the ...

Ms. Mina Fusade, Legal Heir of the Late Prince Sayajirao Gaekwar Vs. M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1160; (2006)201CTR(Bom)207; [2006]285ITR229(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner in this petition seeks to challenge action of respondent No. 1 rejecting the declaration made by the Petitioner under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ('KVS Scheme' for short) in respect of tax arrears of late Prince Sayajirao Gaekwar under Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1978-79; 1981-82; and 1984-85 to 1986-87 contending that the order of rejection suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the provisions of KVS Scheme.Factual Scenario:2. The factual scenario giving rise to the present petition in nutshell is as under:3. The petitioner is a legal heir of deceased Prince Sayajirao Gaekwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for short), who died in France on or about 7th of May, 1985. The petitioner is a non-resident, being a citizen of the United Kingdom, presently residing in Monaco in the South of France.4. The respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner of Income-tax, who is the designated authori...

Vibha Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)ILLJ895Bom; 2005(4)MhLj1111

B.R. Gavai, J.1. All these petitions challenge the validity of the notifications issued by the respondent-State dated 30th June, 2004, thereby fixing the minimum rates of wages for the employees employed in employments covered under Entry No. 65 of Schedule I and the notifications dated 20th July, 2004, thereby fixing the minimum rates of wages for shops and commercial establishments, hospitals, not falling under entry No. 6 in part I of Schedule, and Paper and Paper Board Industries.2. Since a common question as to whether the minimum wages as fixed by the State Government by the impugned notifications are sustainable in law, is involved in all these petitions, they were heard together and are decided by the common judgment.3. Since there was agreement between the learned counsel for the parties that the arguments advanced in support of the challenge and in support of the defence of the notifications dated 30th June, 2004 pertaining to residuary employments, would cover all the matter...

Ramdas S/O Kachru Wadkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1156; 2006(1)MhLj240

S.P. Kukday, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the respective Advocates, matter is taken up for hearing.2. Applicants have impugned the order dated 8th July, 2005 passed by the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (below Exh. 6) in Sessions Case No. 37/2005 dismissing the application for discharge of the accused.3. The facts of the case in brief are that complainant Bansi Sukhlal Kuklare resides at Dongaon Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad with his parents brother Ramlal and six sisters. Out of them, the youngest is Lalitabai who married applicant No. 1 Ramdas, about five years back. After marriage, deceased Lalita started living with her husband at Sillod. Applicant No. 1 was serving as a Teacher at Sillod. Two sons namely, Sachin, Aged 4 years and Akshay, aged 2 years are born within the wedlock. Relationship between the spouses was cordial for first two years. Thereafter, both the applicants started insisting that Lalita should reside at Gevrai Gun...

Dilawar Hakim Shah Vs. Special Recovery Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR68; 2006(1)BomCR141; 2006(3)MhLj256

Bobde S.A., J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service of rule.Heard by consent.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.2005 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, refusing to accept his revision application on the ground that he has not deposited 50% amount of the total amount of recoverable dues as required under Section 154(2-A) of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Admittedly, the recovery certificate was issued on 30.8.2003 and the petitioner filed the revision on 22.2.2005. This application for revision was made after the period of limitation of two months had expired. The petitioner, therefore, applied for condonation of delay.3. Without considering the application for condonation of delay, the Divisional Joint Registrar has rejected the petitioner's revision on the ground that he has not deposited 50% amount of the...

Jayesh M. Gandhi and ors. Vs. Yogendra N. Thakkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR524(Bom); 2006(1)BomCR636

Deshmukh D.K., J.1. By this petition the Petitioners challenge the award dated 16-12-2004. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that admittedly in a contract between the parties there is an arbitration clause. That arbitration clause reads as under:All dispute and questions in connection with the Partnership or this Deed arising between Partners or their representatives shall be referred to Mr. Arun Jaswantlal of Matubhai Jamietram, Attorneys, as sole Arbitrator and in case he is not available or declines to act or resigns, then to a single Arbitrator if the partners agree upon one otherwise to the Arbitrators to be appointed by each party to the difference in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification thereof.Admitted position is that there were nine partners. The named arbitrator did not act as an arbitrator. Nine partners did not agree to the sole arbitrator, therefore, each partner app...

Piem Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Bom)537; [2006]283ITR204(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'E', Bombay ('Tribunal' for short) referring following two questions for the opinion of this Court; one at the instance of the assessee and, another at the behest of the Revenue, arising from its order dt. 6th Feb., 1986 passed in ITA No. 1721/Bom/1986, for the asst. yr. 1982-83 of which relevant accounting year ended on 31st March, 1982 :At the instance of the assessee(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of hotel receipts tax collected by the petitioner-company constituted trading receipts ?At the instance of the Revenue(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for asst. yr. 1982-83 the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 84,95,504 in respect of the hotel receipts tax ?The fa...

Jaydeo S/O Mahadeo Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj497

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Petitioner has filed Civil Application No. 6661 of 2005 for taking his undertaking on record to the effect that he does not wish to claim any benefit of belonging to Scheduled Tribe in future and for a direction that, since he was appointed on 18-6-1997, his appointment be protected and he be reinstated in service. However, taking into consideration the controversy involved in the present petition, we have taken up the present petition for final hearing.2. That the petitioner claimed to be belonging to the tribe 'Halba', which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior Clerk on temporary basis vide order dated June 18, 1997 by the respondent No. 3. Appointment of the petitioner was against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. Vide another order dated September 5, 2001, the respondent No. 3 held that the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed in service as a Junior clerk.3. Since appointment of the petitioner was aga...