Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Ddi (international

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3SOT501(Mum.)

This is an appeal filed by the appellant-company arising out of the order of Commissioner(A) XXXI, Mumbai dated 18-2-2002 passed against an order under section 195(2) by Dy. DIT (International Taxation)-2(1), Mumbai. Number of grounds have been raised which are argumentative as well as narrative however, for the sake of clarity reproduced below : "1. The learned Commissioner(A) erred in passing an order, confirming the stand of the assessing officer under section 248 of the Act.The Appellant submits that the order of Commissioner(A) is bad in law, illegal and without application of proper facts in its proper prospective.2. The learned Commissioner(A) erred in confirming the stand of the CIT with regard to the direction of the DDI (International Taxation)-2(1), Mumbai with regard to the deduction of tax at source at the rate of 20 per cent while remitting fund to, Deutsche Bank, U.K.The appellant submits that learned Commissioner(A) has not considered the facts as well as the legal sub...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)856

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-company arising out of the order of CIT(A)-XXXI, Mumbai, dt. 18th Feb., 2002, passed against an order under Section 195(2) by Dy. Director of IT (International Taxation)-2(1), Mumbai. Number of grounds have been raised which are argumentative as well as narrative however, for the sake of clarity reproduced below: "1 . The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an order, confirming the stand of the AO under Section 248 of the Act. The appellant submits that the order of CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal and without application of proper facts in its proper prospective. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the stand of the CIT with regard to the direction of the Dy. Director of IT (International Taxation)-2(1), Mumbai, with regard to the deduction of tax at source at the rate of 20 per cent while remitting fund to Deutsche Bank, UK. The appellant submits that learned CIT(A) has not considered the facts as well as the legal submission put forth in it...

Mr. Ajay Sayajirao Desai Vs. Mrs. Rajashree Ajay Desai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom278; 2005(3)ALLMR577

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This appeal under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2000 rendered by the Family Court, Pune in Petition No. A-801 of 1998 filed by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds available under section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Act as also for custody of a minor child -Jaydeep. The family court dismissed the petition with costs. 2. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows: The appellant (for short the 'husband') and the respondent (for short the 'wife') tied the nuptial knot on 27.5.1994. They were blessed with one child, who was born on 26.10.1995. The child is now nine years old. The marriage was what is commonly known as 'arranged marriage'. After the marriage the wife started residing with the husband, his parents and sister at Pune. At the relevant time the husband's mother was working with M.S.E.B. The case set up by the husband was that rig...

Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, a Fully Sta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom318; 2005(4)ALLMR281

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. These cross petitions challenging the order of Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Mumbai in Revision Application No.194 of 2003 passed on 28.9.2004 whereby the challenge to the order passed by the Co-operative Court No.1 at Mumbai passed on 4.4.2003 came to be partly allowed, are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Shri. R.N. Singh, the learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh with Mr. Shashi Jain for the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'The Corporation' for the sake of brevity), the petitioner in writ petition No. 9477 of 2004 and respondent in writ petition No. 9859 of 2004 and Mr. V.A. Thorat, the learned senior counsel with Mr. A.G. Sugdare i/b. Mahimtura and Company for the Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for the sake of brevity) the respondent in writ petition No. 9477 of 2004 and petitioner in writ petition No. ...

Naresh K. Rajwani Vs. Rufina M. Pinto and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR1; 2005(4)BomCR201

Deshpande D.G., J.1. Heard Advocates for the appellant and respondent. No. 1. Appellant is the original defendant No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 is the original defendant No. 2. A suit vide Suit No. 5765 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff against the appellant and respondent No. 2 claiming therein that the General Power of Attorney dated 22-7-1994 in the name of the plaintiff appointing Defendant No. 2 and a letter dated 12-8-1994 purporting to create tenancy in respect of the suit premises are fake, false and fraudulent documents and the defendants be restrained from acting upon those documents Exhibits C and D, and defendant No. 1 be declared as trespasser and ordered to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Certain other reliefs were also claimed in addition.2. The case of the plaintiff was that she was the owner of Flat No. 6 on the Second floor of the building calling SUNBEAM. She war, in fact the owner of the entire bu...

Uttam S/O Ambadasrao Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR442; 2006(3)BomCR915; 2005(3)MhLj550

ORDERA.B. Naik, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment and order dt. 23-7-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4616 of 2004.2. This Appeal was lodged in this Court on 16-8-2004, and it was listed for motion hearing on 3-8-2004. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the parties sought an adjournment and by consent, this Court adjourned the appeal for two weeks. Again the appeal was placed for motion hearing on 9-12-2004 and by consent of the parties, it was adjourned beyond Christmas vacation. On reopening the matter was listed before us for motion hearing on 25-1-2005. On that day, the Appeal was heard and remained part heard. Further hearing was commenced on 31-1-2005.3. We heard this Appeal on the point of maintainability as according to us, the appeal is not maintainable as the learned Single Judge has expressly exercised power conferred on this Court vide Article 227 of the Constituti...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hydroflex Equipment Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR811; (2006)200CTR(Bom)551; [2006]282ITR418(Bom)

Britto N.A., J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) and were admitted on a substantial question of law, common in both, which reads as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the ITAT that the assessee has a reasonable cause in not paying the tax is based on any material evidence on record?'2. Since the substantial question of law framed is common in both the appeals, we propose to decide the same by this common judgment. That apart, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, (ITAT, for short) has also decided the same by a common order dated 31-10-2001.3. The respondent No. 1 (assessee, for short) has chosen not to contest these appeals. Both these appeals arise from the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) dated 17-12-1998 under Section 221(1) of the Act. The Tax Appeal No. 39 of 2002 pertains to penalty levied by the said Assessing Officer...

Mohd. Akil S/O Mohd. Yusuf Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1508

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1990, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case are as under : (a) Victim Sheikh Rustam (P.W.1) and the accused are residents of village Umarkhed. On 13.4.1989 at about 23-30 hours, victim Sheikh Rustam along with Rafiuddin (P.W. 2) had gone to the house of one Inayatulla Khan for recovery of dues. The latter was present at his house and he informed that he has given direction to his driver to repay the dues and therefore the victim was asked to approach his driver. Sheikh Rustam and Rafiuddin were proceeding on the road and when they reached behind...

Vishnu Janardan Shirolkar Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants known as M/s. Vishnu Janardan Shirolkar Ma-hajanwadi Trust is located at Vishnu Prasad, 14th Road, 404, Linking Road Corner, Near Ceazers Palace Hotel, Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052, have been providing services as Mandap Keeper.2. Show Cause Notice was issued on 12-4-2000, requiring them to comply with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 but the assessee failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice. Thus, the appellants had contravened the provisions of Sections 68, 69 and 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 in as much as they failed to obtain Registration, pay Service Tax within the period as prescribed and failed to furnish the half-yearly Returns in the prescribed form i.e. ST-3 for the period July, 1997 to December, 2000.3. The Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, passed an Order dated 12-12-2003 and imposed an amount equivalent to the amount of Service Tax payable from July, 1997 to December, 2000 under Section 76 of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. ...

Catalyst Capital Services Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT34Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants have contravened the provisions of Section 68 and 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as the said assessee failed to pay the Service Tax on due date and failed to furnish half-yearly Returns in the prescribed form i.e. ST-3 to the Department within the stipulated time period of 25 days of the preceding half yearly ending September, 2000. The assessee filed ST-3 Returns for the above period on 21-11-2003 instead of on or before 25-10-2000.2. On due enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division K-III, Mumbai-IV, imposed penalty of Rs. 7,105/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delay in payment of Service Tax and imposed Rs. 2,000/- under the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late filing of ST-3 Returns.3. The appellants had already deposited Rs. 7,105/- towards penalty under Section 76 for late payment of Service Tax and also Rs. 1,000/- (as reduced by the Commissioner of Appeals) for late filing of the Returns....