Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
British Bank of Middle East Vs. Jt. Cit, Special Range 27
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4SOT122(Mum.)
All these twelve appeals and three cross objections pertain to the same assessee, involve some common issues and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, all the twelve appeals and three cross objections are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. The twelve appeals consist of six set of cross appeals for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1997-98. The three cross objections are for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.We will first take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 1992-93.In assessee's appeal (i.e. ITA No. 2297/Mum. 97) only one ground is pressed before us and this ground consist of assessee's grievance against CIT(A)'s sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 86,75,496 being expenditure incurred on mobilization of deposits abroad. This is ground No. 3; ground numbers I and 2 were not pressed before us, Ground Nos. I and 2 are therefore dismissed as withdrawn.The reason of disallowance being sustained is that the expenses incurred ...
Motor Cycle House and Metro Cottage Industries, a Partnership Firm and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR211; 2005(5)BomCR114; 2005(3)MhLj1109
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Landlord-respondent Nos.1 to 3 are in need of the additional premises owned by them which has been let out to the petitioner-original plaintiff. Therefore, a Petition filed in the Small Causes Court of Pune on 18th October, 1985, after giving due notice dated 8th May, 1984, and demanded the possession on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need, as contemplated under Section 13(1)(a)(g) of the Bombay Hotel Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'The Bombay Rent Act').2. The petitioner-tenant resisted the same by Written Statement dated 26th August, 1986. The evidence was led by the parties viz. PW1 Madhukar Dattatraya Kale, PW2 Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale, PW3 Shrikant Laxman Gosavi, PW4 Nitin Prabhakar Gujar and one Mr. Rajnikant Damani DW1. The learned Judge, after considering the material, as well as, the evidence led by the parties on the record, granted the decree of possession. The Appellate Court, on the Appeal filed by the pe...
Hariharrao Vishwanathrao Bhosikar Vs. Datta Anandrao Pawar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR702; 2005(4)MhLj211
A.B. Naik, J.1. All the four writ petitions involve common question of law, though filed by different petitioners, can be disposed of by the this common judgment. All the petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short 'the Constitution'). The petitioners have challenged the action of the Collector, Nanded, taking cognizance of the petitions filed under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members (Disqualification) Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'). For the convenience, I will note down the relevant facts in seriatim.2. Writ Petition No. 3962/2005 is filed by one Harihar Vishwanath Bhosikar, a sitting Member of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. He was elected to Z. P. Nanded from Bahadurpura Zilla Parishad (Kandhar), Vibhag No. 8. He was sponsored by Nationalist Congress Party (for short 'NCP') and, was elected as such. After the elections, he continued to be a member of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. (for short 'Z.P.'). The respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Schell International
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)243; [2005]278ITR630(Bom)
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, dated January 10, 2000, in Income-tax Appeal No. 790/Bombay of 1995.2. To state in brief, the respondent had taken up the production of the film called 'Siyasat' during the financial years 1988-89 to 1992-93. As per the provisions of Section 285B, he was required to file the statement in Form No. 52A for each of the assessment year, within 30 days from the expiry of the financial year. Failure to file such statement leads to imposition of penalty under Section 272A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the respondent failed to submit the statements, the show-cause notice dated January 28, 1993, was issued and was served on him on February 3, 1993. He submitted the statements on March 2, 1993. As no reasons were specified for not filing the statement, another notice dated March 9, 1993 was issued. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)658; [2005]279ITR19(Bom)
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The respondents in these appeals, being co-operative sugar factories, made certain deductions from the price of sugarcane crop supplied by the members of the society, for different purposes. Those deductions were included in the income of the society by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claims of the assessees partly and finally the matters were taken up before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Income-tax Appeal No. 9 of 1999 is arising out of Income-tax Appeal No. 1034./PN/97, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92 wherein the following substantial question of law is raised:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Shri Cha...
Special Land Acquisition Officer (7) Vs. Mrs. Karo Kumari Maker Since ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR451; 2005(4)MhLj853
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This order will dispose of the Reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to the two structures standing on C.T.S. Nos. 452 and 453, along with the land underneath the said structures admeasuring 5,000 sq. yards.2. Briefly stated, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, (Improvements) Bombay Municipal Corporation in his letter dated 9-8-1972 addressed a proposal to the Commissioner Bombay Division, Bombay for acquisition of land admeasuring about 26,815 sq.mtr. at village Vile Parle, Tahsil Andheri, District Bombay Suburban bearing C.T.S. No. 439 to 442, 447 and 451 to453 and 454A and 444 Part. The proposal to acquire aforesaid land was for public purpose, namely, for Municipal school, garden, medical college and road. The said land was already notified for reservation in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner, therefore, requested for issuance of notificat...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deluxe Plywood (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT422Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by that portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that the show cause notice dated 2.3.93 for demand of differential duty is barred by limitation, as according to them the duty was provisionally assessed initially and the above assessments were subsequently finalised, and therefore, there was no requirement in law for issue of show cause notice.2. We have heard both sides. The product on which the demand was raised is block-board, the classification of which has been decided by the Supreme Court under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 4408.90 in the case of Wood Craft Products Ltd. (1995 (71) ELT 23(SC). Therefore, the contention of the assessee that classification of the product should be under CET sub-heading 4410.90 as claimed by them, in the light of Tribunal's final Order No.E/126-133/92-D in their own case, against which no appeal was filed by the Revenue, is not tenable. The further argument that the Commissioner (Appeal...
Deepak Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT335Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai upholding the order of the Asstt.Commissioner by which he confirmed the duty demand raised in three show cause notices as a result of denial of benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 9/96, dated 23-7-1996 to decatising process carried out by the appellants herein on man-made fabrics.2. None appeared for the respondent in spite of notice. Hence we heard ld. SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the adjudicating authority has relied upon the definition of calendering and decatising in the Fairchilds Dictionary of Textiles to bring out the difference between two processes and to hold that since calendering and not decatising is covered by the exemption under Notification, decatising process which carried out by the appellants is not covered by the benefit of the Notification.According to the dictionary, calendering is a finishing process producing a flat, glossy, smooth su...
Kilburn Engg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT375Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As set out at ground (3) of the Misc. Application dated 11-2-2005, Page 11, the correct totalling of the value comes to Rs. 3,55,24,000/-, as against the erroneously totalled value of Rs. 3,95,66,500/- by the Respondent Based on this wrong totalling, the Respondent had wrongly confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 62,82,895/-, as against the demand coming to Rs. 56,36,135/- based on the correct totalling of the value of the 'SCN'. This has resulted in the Respondent confirming wrongly an amount of Rs. 6,46,770/- as duty + imposing Rs. 6,46,770/- as equal amount of penalty, coming in total to Rs. 12,93,540/- (Pages 47 to 51 of Misc. Appl. Dated 11-2-05).This mistake apparent on the face of the record is not sustainable and is to be corrected, even before deciding the merits of the issue involved, as it is wrong collection of duty and penalty without the authority of law. This is so settled by our Regional Bench of Hon'ble Tribunal in Besterna Chemicals - .1.2 The issue herein is whether ...
Anil Dang Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT98Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printed laminated Film Rolls falling under Chapter 39. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 27-3-2002, and on verification of the stock, it was found that the quantity of 40,147 of the said goods totally valued at Rs. 57,05,190/- was in excess than the record balance. It was also noticed that the said goods were fully packed and in ready to despatch condition. Production slips in the said goods were destroyed by the appellant. Inasmuch as the goods were not entered in RG-1 register, the same were seized.2. As a follow up action, their transporters premises was also searched. 9,120 Kg of rolls meant for gutka manufactures was found lying there. The statement of Shri Manjay Shukla, transporter's authorised representative was recorded deposing that the goods in question have been received from the appellant without the cover of any duty paying documents. Further, Shri Nitin Mali, proprietor of the transp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »