Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Enam Financial Consultants (P) Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-II dated 3-12-2001 at Mumbai for the assessment year 1998-99. A. Claim for damages paid of Rs. 36,60,000 for breach of underwriting arrangement: (1) On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in laws, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that: (a) In terms of MODEL underwriting agreement as per the SEBI Regulations and also the actual underwriting agreement entered into between the appellant as an underwriter and the Issuer Company M/s. Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd.: (i) failure on the part of an underwriter to honour its obligation to subscribe to devolved securities and (b) For the reasons stated, there was a genuine dispute between the Issuer Company M/s. Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd. and the appellant as an underwriter. (c) In terms of legal provisions, particularly Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, payment of compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of cont...

Shri Gajanan Majik Son of Shri Gopal Majik Vs. State, Through Public P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR210; 2006CriLJ1146

N.A. Britto, J.1. In this Revision the Accused has challenged Judgments/Orders dated 16/07/2002 and 15/10/2005 of the learned JMFC, Bicholim and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji, convicting the Accused and upholding the said conviction, respectively under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C.2. An accident took place on 29/5/1998 at about 4 p.m. at Amona near the gate of Sesa Goa Pig Iron Plant. This accident took place between the minibus having No. GA-01/U-3412 driven by the Accused and the motorcycle having No. GA-01/B-7496 driven by Digambar A. Naik who died in the said accident. 3. As a result of the said accident the Accused came to be prosecuted on a charge sheet filed under Section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. in which the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. There is no dispute that at the relevant time the Accused was driving the said minibus and it must be stated that there is ample evidence to that effect which has been considered by both the Courts below. Both the...

Pawan Oil Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)ACC124; AIR2006Bom109; 2006(4)ALLMR663; 2006(5)BomCR831

P.S. Brahme, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/original plaintiff, a registered ownership firm against the order dated 24.9.1991 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur rejecting the claim of the ap-pellant. The claim of plaintiff in brief was that it had purchased from V. GURUDASARADHAN 300 bags of ground-nut seeds which the seller booked at Rail-way Station ex. NAYUDUPETA R.S. to Amalner Railway Station as per invoice No. 3 Railway Receipt No. 733051 dated 7.5.1986. The consignment arrived at Amalner on or about 30.5.1986, when it was noticed that six bags, were in torn condition. On reweighment, shortage of 164 kgs was detected. In that respect claim was preferred to Chief Commercial Superintendent, Bombay on 14.7.1986; but the same was repudiated by the Railway Administration as per reply dated 21.8.1986. The shortage detected at Amalner was due to misconduct and negligence of the Railway Administration which was liable to pay to plaintiff price of groundnut seeds delive...

Transport Solution Group Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 17,77,448/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs seventy-seven thousand four hundred forty-eight only) and penalty of equal to tax under Section 76 + Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the levy of service tax holding that the applicants are rendering taxable service as 'rent-a-cab' scheme operators.3. The contention of the applicants is that they do not own the vehicles which are used to pick-up and drop persons at specific points, that they have entered into an agreement both with the rent-a-cab scheme operator and with their customers and they are not liable to pay service tax as they are not rent-a-cab scheme operators within the meaning of this expression for the purpose of levy of service tax. We do not find prima fade force in the submission having regard to the definition of rent-a-cab scheme ...

Globe Pvt. Detective Bureau Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 17,43,610/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs forty-three thousand six hundred ten only) confirmed against the applicants herein for the period 16th October/1998 to September, 2002 & October, 2002 to March, 2003 and penalty of amount equal to service tax imposed under Section 78, penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Section 75A and penalty of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per day under Section 76 + penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, who has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants against the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the service tax demand, on the ground of non-compliance with his direction for pre-deposit of 50% of duty and penalty.3. The demand of service tax arises on the ground that the applicants had provided security services to vario...

Suzuki Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we find that the duty of Rs. 56,41,880/-(Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Forty One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty only) stands confirmed against the appellants by the impugned order of the Commissioner on the findings of clandestine removal of fabrics, which in turn are based upon recovery of 52 slips from the appellants' factory during the course of visit of the officers on 19.09.2002.2. The appellants have contended that the figures as reflected in the said slips represent re-treatment of the fabrics. But the Commissioner has found that apart from 6 slips, the balance did not have the words "RT" on that and the figures are not entered in re-treatment register being maintained by the appellants. It has also been argued before us about the electricity consumption figures shown by the appellants during the course of adjudication do not show any clandestine removal.3. The Revenue's contention is that this is a case of clandestine manufacture and removal of huge quanti...

Matsa Security Services (i) P. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 12,00,291/- (Rupees twelve lakhs two hundred ninety-one only) confirmed against the applicants herein for the period 16th October 1998 to September 2002 & October 2002 to March 2003 and penalty of amount equal to service tax imposed under Section 78, penalty of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred only) under Section 75A and penalty of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per day under Section 76 + penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, who has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants against the order of the Assistant Commissioner confirming the service tax demand, on the ground of non-compliance with his direction for pre-deposit of 50% of duty and penalty.3. The demand of service tax arises on the ground that the applicants had provided security services to various clients and were, ...

Ravi Divecha Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Shri Durgesh Nadkarni, learned Advocate for the appellants prays for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground that the impugned goods have been abandoned. He also pleads financial hardship.He further submits that penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the appellants is unjustified as the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- only has been imposed on co-noticee Shri Dilip Gosalia. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 is dependent upon the impugned goods being liable for confiscation. In the instant case, the goods were misdeclared and 8800 Kgs of cloves were found concealed in the consignment declared to be chick peas. As such, even though subsequently the goods have been abandoned, the same were liable to confiscation. Accordingly, the right of customs to impose penalty cannot be questioned. However, considering the other arguments of the learned Advocate relating to imposition of lower penalty on the co-noticee and financial hardship, part waiver of pre-deposit is granted and the app...

Chohung Bank Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD45(Mum.)

The CIT(A) erred in law and in facts, in upholding the action of Dy. Director of Income-tax (International taxation) -1(2), Mumbai thereby rejecting the appellant's claim for the benefit of the non-discrimination clause of the India-Korea DTAA and taxing the appellant's income at the rate of 48 per cent instead of at the rate applicable to a domestic company i.e., 35 per cent. The appellant therefore, prays that the benefit of the article 26 of the DTAA be granted and that its income be taxed at the rate of 35 per cent instead of 48 per cent.2. Thus the assessee is aggrieved against the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing it at the rate of 48 per cent being the tax rate for non-domestic companies as against claim of assessee to tax it at a rate of 35 per cent being the rate applicable to domestic companies.3. The assessee is a banking company based at Korea. It has a branch in India. It is involved in normal Banking activities including financing of foreign trade and foreign exc...

Yucca Finvest (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)101ITD403(Mum.)

1.1 The grounds of appeal that follow are all independent and without prejudice to each other. 1.2 That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer regarding invoking of the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 73 in the case of your petitioners and has consequently erred in treating the loss incurred on sale of shares as a speculation loss. 1.3 That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that Explanation 1 to Section 73 was applicable in the case of your petitioners who were solely carrying on the business of an investment company. This being despite the fact that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has himself stated in the third para of page 3 of the appeal order that the Explanation did not apply to an investment company. 1.4 That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that during the year under review your petitioners have been engaged...