Mumbai Court July 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.
Asstt. Cit Vs. Gic Asset Management Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)6SOT283(Mum.)
This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1998-99.The department in this appeal objecting to deletion of addition of Rs. 37,49,715 being the fees receivable by the assessee under the GIC Big Value Scheme. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has waived fees receivable under GIC Big Value Scheme. The assessee was required to explain why the fees receivable should not be added to the income of the assessee. It was explained that only real income, i.e., income accrued and received can be brought to tax and notional income cannot be charged to tax. It was further stated that the assessee has taken conscious view that the management fee receivable by the assessee from the mutual fund will be a beneficiery as the overall result of fee charge and expenses to be borne by the assessee-company were almost equal. It was also explained that NAV (Net Asset Value) of the scheme had fal...
Salim Kadar Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR131
R.C. Chavan, J.1. By making this appeal, the appellant seeks to have his conviction for offence punishable under Section 382 of I.P.C and the resultant sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, set aside.2. Facts which led to prosecution of the appellant are as under :-Appellant was married to complainant Huruddin's daughter Rubina on 19th October 1992. At that time, the appellant was residing alongwith his parents and brother who were arrayed as co-accused at the tria. Victim Rubina was subjected to ill-treatment since about two months after marriage. This resulted in Rubina's giving a report at Police Station, Khed on 31st July 1993. The matter was however amicably settled. Thereafter, the appellant and Rubina were residing separately from appellant's parents and brother. The appellant however continued to ill-treat Rubina. On the night of 14th November 1...
Union of India (Uoi) Through the Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hoganas I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR61; 2006(199)ELT8(Bom)
S. Radakrishnan,J.1. In all the above ten Petitions, common issue has been raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission constituted under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioners in the five Writ Petitions which have been filed by the Union of India representing the Customs Department, have sought to contend that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain any application under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 is very limited in the sense, such an application can be entertained only in case of short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise. On the contrary, the contentions of the Petitioners in the other five Writ Petitions which have been filed by the private parties is that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission constituted under the Customs Act is quite wider and it cannot be restricted in such a narrow manner. On this point of law, the learned Counsel appearing for the Customs Department as well as the learne...
Shri Datta Nagosa Solanki Vs. Shri Madhukar Dattoba Adnik (Since Decea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR508; 2005(6)BomCR105; (2005)107BOMLR145; 2005(4)MhLj520
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 11/1/1993, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, (appellate court), whereby, the Judgment and decree passed by the II Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Kolhapur, (trial court) dated 7/3/1987, was set aside and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for a fresh trial.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The bone of contention in the present matter is revolving around the issue, about fixation of standard rent, as contemplated under Section 11(3) read with Section 12(a) and (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act).3. The main ground for the suit of eviction was irregular payment. The trial Court, after considering the merits of the matter accepted the case of the landlord. The trial Court, had considered the following observation of the judgments of th...
P.H. Hamid Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Bom)441; [2005]278ITR112(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I. T. Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), Mumbai, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. The assessment year involved is 1980-81.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the machinery and, therefore, the assessee is liable to tax on profits of Rs. 2,13,705 under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is liable to tax on profits under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though depreciation was claimed by the partnership firm which was dissolved and the machinery were allotted to the assessee who sold the same after dissolution of the firm ?'The facts :2. In this case, the assessee was a partne...
Akshay S/O Dilip Bhalerao Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR342; 2006(2)BomCR721; 2005(4)MhLj909
S.P. Kukday, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 4484/2005 to 4490/2005, 4508/2005 to 4510/2005, 4656/2005, 4657/2005 and 4742/2005 raise a common question of law and fact, therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.2. Petitioners are the guardians of the students who appears for final examination of 10th standard (S.S.C.) held by Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (hereinafter refered to as the Board) in March, 2005. By and large, all these students are taking education from the beginning in English Medium. Their record in the previous examination in English besides other subjects was good. Therefore, all these students were sure about their performance in the final examination held by the Board in the year 2005. This expectation of the student was based on their hard work. However, when the results were declared, the students found that they have scored good marks in all subjects except English. This was shocking. Therefore, the petition...
Chandrakant Devu Shinde Vs. Director, Chhatrapati Shahu Central Instit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR616]
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petition impugns the judgment and order of the Industrial Court rendered on 19.1.1996 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 69 of 1995. By the said judgment the Industrial Court was pleased to reverse the view taken by the Labour Court vide its judgment arid order dated 30.12.1994 holding the petitioner to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act').The petitioner on completion of his graduation also acquired the degree in law as well as Master's degree in Social Work. The respondent No. 1 appointed the petitioner as a 'Social Case Worker' in the Family Counselling Centre on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month and on purely temporary basis upto 31st March, 1991 vide the order dated 20.11.1990. By another order dated 29.8.1992, his temporary tenure was brought to an end and, therefore, he approached the Labour Court at Kolhapur and filed Complaint (ULP) No. 17 of 1993 under Items 1(a), (b)...
P.H. Hamid Vs. Cit, Bombay City-iv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN676(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. By this reference under section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Income Tax Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal hereinafter referred to as ), Mumbai, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. The assessment year involved is 1980-81 :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the machinery and, therefore, the assessee is liable to tax on profits of Rs. 2,13,705 under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is liable to tax on profits under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though depreciation was claimed by the partnership firm which was dissolved and the machinery were allotted to the assessee who sold the same after dissolution of the firm?'The Facts:2. In this case, the assessee wa...
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(201)ELT529(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above ten Petitions, common issue has been raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission constituted under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act, 1962). The Petitioners in the five Writ Petitions which have been filed by the Union of India representing the Customs Department, have sought to contend that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain any application under Section. 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 is very limited in the sense, such an application can be entertained only in case of short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise. On the contrary, the contentions of the Petitioners in the other five Writ Petitions which have been filed by the private parties is that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission constituted under the Customs Act is quite wider and it cannot be restricted in such a narrow manner. On this point of law, the learned Counsel appearing for the Customs Department as well as the le...
Nariman Point Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT88Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat confiscating 2356.595 metric tonnes of Crude Calcium Borate valued at little over Rs. 2.23 crores imported by M/s Nariman Point Chemicals Industries Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as NPCI) with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 1.20 crores, confirming customs duty of Rs. 63,35,660/- together with interest and imposing penalties under section 112(a) as under.1. NPCI Rs.15.00 lacs2. Shri J K Rai, Vice President of NPCI Rs.10.00 lacs3. Central Warehousing Corporation Rs.2,0004. Shri P C Bhatt, Jr Superintendent, CWC Rs.2,0005. Shri B R Thakkar, Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs. Range-III Rs.2,0006. Shri R K Sharma, Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, Range-III Rs.1,000 2. The case of the Department in a nutshell is that NPCI, after clearing a total quantity of 6700 MTs of Crude Calcium Borate without payment of Customs duty under bond for re-ware...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »