Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

G.G. Diamond International Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Mum.)809

1. In this appeal by the assessee, for the asst. yr. 2001-02, the following grounds are urged: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in passing the order under Section 250 as it is based on illegal/uncalled remand report of the AO and consequently the order be squashed. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the assessment by Rs. 1,21,68,258 by recomputing the unaccounted peak investment at Rs. 4,67,01,433 from Rs. 3,45,33,175 as determined in the assessment order which is as it is based on illegal and uncalled remand report of the AO. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 3,45,33,175 as an unexplained investment in business for cost of diamonds exported out of India at the market value being 1/0.82 times of the peak credit of Rs. 2,83,17,204. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the conclusion of purchases at Rs. 6,45,88,956 in cash instead of credit purchase as declared by the appellant and thereafter adding Rs. 1,29,77,912 being 20 per cent of alleged cash purchase under Sect...

Pune Zilla Madhyawarti Sah. Bank Vs. Urmila Chandrakant Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR419; 2006(1)BomCR34; 2006(3)MhLj53

Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28-7-2005 in Civil Appeal No. (532 of 2004. Some of the material facts of the present case in brief are as under:2. The respondent landlord has filed the a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Pune being Civil Suit No. 366 of 2003 under the provision of Presidency Small Causes Court Act by relying upon the provision of Section 3(i)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent has filed the reply and raised the contention that they are not covered by the provision of Section 3(i)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner herein is a Co-operative Bank known as Pune Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank. Admittedly, the share capital of the bank is more than Rs. One crore. Respondent has filed the suit on the basis that the petitioner being a bank and having share capital of more than Rs. One crore is not covered by the protection conferred under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act by vi...

Mahesh Mehta Huf and Mahesh G. Mehta Karta of Mahesh G. Mehta Huf Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC358; (2006)108BOMLR381; 2006CriLJ1142

N.A. Britto, J.1. This revision is filed by the accused in C.C. No.101/N/2000/C against his conviction and sentence imposed upon him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Act, for short), by Judgment/Order dated 1862003 as confirmed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Margao by his Judgment/Order dated 1092004. 2. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant had invested money with the accused and in payment thereof the accused had issued two cheques both dated 3091999, one bearing No.062165 for Rs.12,000/and the other bearing No.062168 for Rs.4,00,000/, both drawn on Global Trust Bank Ltd., Margao but when the Complainant presented the said cheques for encashment through her Bankers the same were dishonoured as the accused did not have sufficient funds in his said account and the said Bank had issued two different Memos to the Complainant informing the Complainant that the cheques were dishonoured for the the following reason: 'Refer to ...

Chandrayya Mutwayya Irabatti Vs. Sidram Ganpat Ingale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom76; 2006(1)ALLMR417; 2006(1)BomCR36

Mohite R.S., J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 139 of 1987 filed in the Court of III Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur impugns a judgement and order dated 14.2.1991 passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Solapur dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. By the impugned judgment and order the plaintiff's suit was dismissed as not maintainable for want of registration of the firm 'M/s. Asian Gas Agency'. The trial Court concluded that the suit was barred by provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.2. The case of the plaintiff as per his averments in the plaint was briefly as follows:That the plaintiff and the defendant were partners of the firm named 'M/ s. Asian Gas Agency'. There were five other partners of the firm. A partnership deed was executed by and between seven partners on 22.4.1984. The defendant had been conferred an agency by Hindustan Petroleum Limited. The defendant however, did not h...

Basawaraj Sheelwant and ors. Vs. Cantonment Board of Pune and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom89; 2006(3)ALLMR75; 2006(2)BomCR81; 2006(2)MhLj14

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. A 'pay and park' scheme, hereinafter referred to as 'the said scheme', introduced by respondent No. 1-the Cantonment Board of Pune, is impugned in the instant writ petition filed by the four businessmen, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said scheme is for parking of vehicles on Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pune hereinafter referred to as 'M. G. Road'. Respondent No. 1 is a statutory Board constituted under The Cantonment Act, 1924 (for short 'the said Act'). M. G. Road vests in the respondent-Board which enjoys the right to control, protect and maintain the same as also to regulate the traffic thereon.2. The petitioners are businessmen having their shops/show-rooms at the M. G. Road and they have been carrying on their business for last several years. The said scheme, which, according to the petitioners, affects them most, was introduced sometime in 1997. The moment the petitioners came to know about the said scheme, they approached the respondent-Board an...

Laxmibai @ Guntabai Maharu Patil Vs. Maharu Dagadu Patil Deceased Thro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR94; 2006(6)BomCR410; 2006(2)MhLj188

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner, district Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 25A of 1996 by the appellant/plaintiff, since she is not copasetic with the judgment and decree passed by in Regular Civil Suit No. 25A of 1996. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial Court and respondent in this appeal was the defendant in the said suit. The parties are hereinafter referred to their status in the suit, for the sake of convenience.2. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 25A of 1996 for partition and separate possession along with mesne profits, it is alleged by the plaintiff that one Maharu Dagadu Patil was resident of village Junone, Taluka Amalner, district Jalgaon. Maharu Patil was having agricultural landed properties at village Junone. The defendant No. 1 is adopted son of the plaintiff. This adoption took place on 18th May, 1972. Apart from the plaintiff, Maharu Patil wa...

Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]6SOT384(NULL)

ORDERA.K. Garodia, AM This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXII, Mumbai, dated 27-3-2002 for assessment year 1998-99. First Ground of appeal reads as under:'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming charging of tax on interest income at 20 per cent as per the provisions of section 115AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of at 15 per cent as per the provisions of article I I of the Tax Treaty between India and the USA.'The appellant submits that the Treaty provisions override the provisions of the Income Tax Act and learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have applied the correct rate being the lower rate of tax under the treaty. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. : [1991]190ITR626(Cal) , as also Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT v. Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, : [1983]144ITR146(AP) and the CBDT's own circular No. 333 dated 2-4-1982.The appellant contend...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Hydrogas Plg (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC39

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. The short issue involved in the appeal Page 0041 is as to whether the process losses in respect of liquid carbon dioxide gas received by the respondents from their sister unit in tankers, while being transferred to cylinders should result in denial of modvat credit to such quantity of shortages.2. After hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands decided by the Tribunal's decision in the case of HPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I reported in 2001 (136) ELT 943 (Tri. Kolkata) holding that the wastage occurring from tank discharge through pipeline up to reaction kettle attributable to spillage, pipeline losses, handling losses, evaporation losses, etc. is covered by the provisions of Rule 57D of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and modvat credit cannot be denied to such quantity. I also take note of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Ex...

Hanil Era Textiles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 43,10,139/-(Rupees Forty three lacs ten thousand one hundred thirty nine only) and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the applicants herein who are 100% EOU, arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.), Mumbai, who has confirmed the demand on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-CE at Serial No. 3 thereof was not available, as the applicants had not adduced any evidence in support of their contention that the finished goods cleared into DTA, for which benefit of exemption was claimed, that goods were produced or manufactured wholly from raw materials produced or manufactured in India.2. We have heard both sides. We note that although the evidence appears to have been produced regarding the procurement of indigenous raw materials, prima facie, no evidence has been produced to show chat indigenous law materials also procured and were used in the manufacture of finished goods, which w...

Dr. Sanjay Sharma Vs. Tata Memorial Hospital and Director, Tata Memori ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR452; 2006(1)BomCR51; (2005)107BOMLR1139; (2006)IILLJ84Bom; 2006(1)MhLj655

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner joined the services of Respondent No. 1 from 29th November, 1985 as Assistant Surgeon and was appointed as Professor of Surgery in 1998 and continued to hold that post. At the time of employment the petitioner had completed 31 years of age. By application dated 15th February, 2003 the petitioner sought to voluntarily retire from the services of the respondent No. 1 and accordingly tendered his application for V.R.S. under the applicable Rules effective from 1st September, 2003. By communication dated June 17, 2003, pursuant to Petitioner's letter dated 30th April, 2003, wherein the petitioner had clarified that he has sought to retire voluntarily on and from 1st September, 2003 under Rule 56(k) of the Central Civil Service (CCS) Rules, the petitioner was informed that the request of premature retirement under FR 56(k) cannot be accepted in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and as also the case was under investigation by Ce...