Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Sajan Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)548; [2006]282ITR636(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj1137

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.2. It appears that the petitioners had filed an declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). The petitioners had under the said scheme filed a declaration on 25th December, 1997 disclosing an income of Rs. 10 lakhs. It may be noted here that under the scheme the petitioners are liable to pay entire tax due and payable within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said declaration. On 29th January, 1998 the petitioners had paid Rs. 51,000/- towards tax liability and a further sum of Rs. 52,000/- on 27-2-1998, totalling a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/-. On 26-3-1998 the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 1000/- on 30-3-1998.3. The basic dispute in the above petition is that the entire tax liability was not paid within a period of three months as contemplated under the scheme. Mr. Bhujale learned counsel f...

Sajan Enterprises Miraj Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR701

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondents.2. It appears that the petitioners had filed an declaration under the voluntary Disclosure scheme 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme').The petitioners had under the said scheme filled a declaration on 25th December 1997 disclosing an income of Rs. 10 lakhs. It may be noted here that under the scheme the petitioners are liable to pay entire tax due and payable within a period of three months from the said declaration. On 29th January 1998 the petitioners had paid Rs. 51000/- towards tax. Liability. And a further sum of Rs. 1,03,000/-. On 26.3.1998 the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- and a further sum of sum of Rs. 1000/- on 30.3.1998.3. The basic dispute dispute in the above petition is that the entire tax liability was not paid within a period of three months as contemplated under the scheme. Mr. Bhujale counsel for the petitioners also fairly does not dispute that the afores...

Haider Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to the Govt. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3278

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 27.11.2003 issued by Neela Satyanarayaha, Principal Secretary, (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra (for short 'the detaining authority') under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the COFEPOSA Act') by. which Abdulla Gulam Mustafa, hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu', has been detained with a view to prevent him in future from smuggling of goods. The petition is filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu.2. The factual matrix that would be relevant and material for deciding the instant criminal writ petition is as follows: On 14.2.2003 at Sahara International Airport, Mumbai the detenu was frisked and in his hand baggage Indian currency of Rs. 47 lakhs and the foreign currency, equivalent to Indian Rs. 21,65,384.60 was found. In further investigation it transpi...

The Solapur Promoters and Builders Association Society and anr. Vs. th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR484; 2005(5)BomCR626; (2005)107BOMLR287; 2005(4)MhLj445

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act 1992 -Maharashtra Act 16 of 1992 - has been challenged in these proceedings. By this amendment, the State legislature inserted Chapter VI-A into the provisions of the parent Act in order to provide for the levy, assessment and recovery of a Development Charge. Sub-section (1) of Section 124A enacts the levy of a Development Charge in the following terms :'124A. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Planning Authority or the Development Authority (hereinafter in this Chapter collectively referred to as 'the Authority'), shall levy within the area of its jurisdiction development charge on the institution of use or change of use of any land or building, or development of any land or building, for which permission is required under this Act, at the rates specified by or under the provisions of this Chapter:Provided that, where land appurtenant to a building is used for ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Narsingh Agricultural Corporation Ltd. a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)MhLj236

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendant State of Maharashtra has filed this second appeal against the judgment dated 15-3-1988 and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9/1982, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the appellate Court confirmed the judgment dated 30-4-1981 and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 24/1973, whereby the appellant-defendant No. 1 has been directed to pay the amount of Rs. 20,985.66 to the respondent-plaintiff with future interest.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. It is registered limited company and owned agricultural land at village Chatsawli. In the agricultural Session 1972-73, cotton crop of varieties L-147 and MCU-5 were sown in that field. By virtue of the provisions of Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procureme...

Varroc Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Id. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 4(2)(a) read with Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, the appellant has rightly availed 50% credit on the duty paid on the imported goods. The condition of availments of credit based on possession and use by the appellant of the machine in question in the subsequent year, applies only with the respect to 50% of the balance credit. Since the appellant has claimed only first 50% credit as per the aforesaid rules, the Adjudicating Authorities have wrongly rejected the credit amount. I fully agree with the Id. Consultant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed....

isi Bars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT114Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 10,47,651/- against M/s. ISI Bars Limited in respect of 27 Metric Tones of Calcium Silicide under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on them, imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on its Director and dropped the proceedings for recovery of balance duty amount against M/s. ISI Bars Limited and entire duty demand against M/s. India Steel International and M/s. India Steel International Private Limited, and proposal of penal action against the above mentioned 3 companies as well as their officers, supporting manufacturers/job workers and the transporter.2. The Revenue has preferred appeals aggrieved by dropping of proceedings while M/s. ISI Bars Limited and its joint Managing Director Shri Sudhir Gupta are in appeal against the confirmation of part duty demand and imposition of penalties.3. The brief facts of the case as made out in the Show ...

Shimnit Infrastructures Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide order No.S/10-11/WZB/2005/C-III dated 21/12/2004, M/s. Shimnit Infrastructures Ltd., was directed to deposit 50% of duty demand determined against them on or before 01/03/2005, for the purposes of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. On a writ petition filed against the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Bombay vide its order dated 24/02/2005, set aside the same on the ground that the order did not contain any reason. On this limited ground, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for re-decision.2. Thereafter, the matter was listed a number of times but were adjourned with direction to the departmental representative to call for original file for the purposes of verification of the appellant's allegation that the requisite Commissioner's approval in terms of the provisions of Section 11A was not taken. On 09/06/2005, the original file was produced and was scrutinised by the Ld. Advocate Shri S.N.Kantawala appealing for the appellants. On being shown that the Co...

Stak Cable Arts and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)129CompCas269NULL

1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original judgment-debtors. They have not filed any substantive appeal (so far) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai, in Original Application No.3569 of 2000 in favour of the applicant-bank and against the present appellants. In due course, recovery proceedings being R. P. No. 191 of 2002 commenced and also came to be finally concluded. The judgment-debtors never paid a single farthing to the applicant-bank.Their property therefore was put to sale and was knocked down in favour of the bidder for consideration of Rs. 36,00,786. It was only after the sale was conducted that the appellants suddenly raised certain objections with respect to the manner in which the sale was conducted, making grievance that no public auction was carried out, that some other offer made by Mr. Sanjay Modi ought to have been considered by the Recovery Officer and that the Recovery ...

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)270

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXV, Mumbai, confirming the order passed by the AO under Section 195 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal: 1.1 The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the view of the Asstt. CIT (TDS) that the credit rating fees paid by the appellant to Standard & Poors (Australia) (P) Ltd. (S&P) is liable to tax in India. 1.2 The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the view of the AO that the credit rating fees paid by the appellant to S&P is 'fees for technical services' as defined as per Expln. 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act. 1.3 The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the view of the AO that the credit rating fees paid by the appellant to S&P would also fall within the purview of the term 'royalty' as defined in Article 12 of the Indo-Australian Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. 1.4 The appellant submits that considering the facts and ...