Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

R.P.G. Life Sciences Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and considering the issue it is found that this appeal is on the duty demands made on pharmaceutical samples withdrawn from production for testing in the factory & destruction of such samples.2. The issue is now well settled by the Larger Bench in the case of CCE v. Dabur India Ltd. wherein after considering the instruction in the Basic Excise Manual as on 31.12.79 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Supplementary Instruction to the Excise Manual from 1.9.2001 classifying the position that samples required for laboratory test in the factory and for preservation for investigation of complaints can be drawn and no duty be charged, the Larger Bench allowed the reference on central samples. Following the instructions and Clarification issued, by the Board for the Excise Manuals, we would also find that test samples need not be charged to duty, if not cleared from the factory.3. We would therefore, following the Manual Instruction and the L...

Pushpam Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)5SOT257(Mum.)

These two appeals filed by the assessee and relating to Assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 are disposed off by this common order as issues involved are identical.The first ground of appeal which is common for both the Assessment years pertains to disallowance of interest paid by the assessee to the bank on the ground that the assessee advanced interest-free loan to Maharashtra Trading Agency and, thus, the interest-bearing borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purpose. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee filed detailed written submissions claiming that the assessee was having interest-free funds to the extent of Rs. 67.64 lakhs. It was further pointed out that the assessee was having business transactions with M/s. Maharashtra Trading Agency. The assessee was making sales and was also doing job work on behalf of the aforesaid concern. The assessee was to receive job work charges from M/s. Maharashtra Trading Agenc...

Dy. Cit Vs. Shripal S. Morakhia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT609(Mum.)

This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)XX dated 25-4-1994, 24-4-1995 and 27-12-1996 for assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. Since all these appeals relating to the same assessee were heard on the same date, hence being decided by a consolidated order.The only issue in assessment year 1991-92 and the first ground of appeal in assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 raised by the revenue is regarding direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has erred in directing the assessing officer to accept Rs. 7,000 as income from property of Prithvi Apartment as against Annual Value determined at Rs. 13,65,475 by the assessing officer.The facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee had purchased a flat at Prithvi Apartment, Altamount Road measuring 2242 Sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 1 crore from Mr.M.B. Kapadia. The assessee leased out the said flat to M/s. Oman International bank on leave and l...

Dsp Meryill Lynch Ltd. (Formerly Vs. the Jcit, Sr-22

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD337(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1987-88. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXII at Mumbai passed on 09-08-2000 and arises out of the proceedings completed by the assessing authority Under Section 155 of the Income-tax At, 1961.2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee company had purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 22,60,913. Thereupon, the assessee company claimed an amount of Rs. 5,65,228 by way of deduction under Investment Allowance. In order to qualify to make the said claim, the assessee had made a corresponding Investment Allowance Reserve for an amount of Rs. 4,30,000. In the assessment the deduction as claimed by the assessee was allowed by the assessing authority.3. According to the assessee company, in compliance of the provisions of Section 32A(4), the assessee had utilised the said amount of reserve in acquiring specified assets during the previous years relev...

Miss Neha Achrekar Vs. Directorate of Technical Education

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR42

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner herein is seeking an admission to the management course either for MBA or MMS for the academic year 2005-2006 though the examination under the State Government. She has appeared for the Central Entrance Test (CET) held by the State Government and has passed the CET. Her only problem is that though she claims to belong to an Other Backward Class (OBC), she did not have the Non-creamy layer certificate when she filled up the form. She has obtained it now and before the allotment of students to the colleges starts. That process is to be held tomorrow i.e. on 21st July 2005. Hence, urgency in the matter.3. Considering the urgency of the matter, we issue Rule and make it returnable forthwith. Mr. Nargolkar, learned AGP, has fairly proceeded with the matter on instructions of one Mr. S.V. Kolla, Assistant Director (Technical), who is present in Court. He has opposed the reliefs in the petition without filing a rep...

Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR611; [2006]129CompCas642(Bom); [2005]63SCL222(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Where the shares of a company are held jointly, whether a power of attorney executed by the first holder empowering a specified person to vote in respect of the shares held jointly is valid and whether a power of attorney is a proxy are the main issues raised in this appeal. The Chairman presiding over the 28th Annual General Meeting of the appellant No. 1 company ruled that the votes cast by the power of attorney holder in respect of shares held jointly are invalid because, firstly, the power of attorney is executed by the first holder only and not by both the joint shareholders and secondly, the votes cast were in excess of the number of shares set out in the power of attorneys. The learned Company Judge reversing the ruling of the Chairman held that the power of attorney executed by the first holder is valid. The learned Company Judge held that the power of attorney is a proxy and that the votes cast by the power of attorney holder to the extent of the number of ...

Etco Spinners Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR351; 2006(1)MhLj457

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners seek mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant forthwith the electricity connection (high tension consumer) to the petitioner No. 1 company at its premises, namely plots B-2 & B-3, MIDC, Parabhani.3. Undisputed facts in the matter are, that a co-operative spinning mill known as 'Prabhavati Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd.', which existed on the said plots, was ordered to be liquidated by the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called as the 'Cooperative Act' and as a result of the liquidation proceedings the assets of the said society were put to public sale by inviting tenders. The petitioner No. 1 submitted its tender along with some other parties and those tenders were opened on 25-3-2004 and the petitioner No. 1's tender having been found to be the highest, same was accepted by the respondent No. 2, the Liquidator and t...

The State of Maharashtra Through Mr. Rajendra Sonwane, D.i.G., S.R.P.F ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1514

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial Nos. 78/2002 and 159/2002 by common judgment dated 31.3.2003. 2. There are two sets of the accused persons. The first set is original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 (respondents No. 1 to 3) who are the Watchmen in Birla Oil Industries, Akola and accused No. 10 Shafakat Hussain is the owner of the Godown situated in Birla Oil Industries, Akola. Accused Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 to 17 are the police personnel who were attached to Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola at the relevant time. The trial against accused No. 13 A.S.I. Ingle abated because of his death whereas the State has not preferred appeal against acquittal of accused No. 10 Shafakat Hussain. 3. The prosecution against the Police Officials arose out of the judgment by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ ...

Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani Vs. Solestrap Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR649; 2006(1)MhLj21

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This order will dispose of both the Chamber Summonses.3. Briefly stated, the Judgment Creditor filed Summary Suit against the defendants, which has been decreed on 18th March, 2002. The said decree has become final and has not been challenged by any of the defendants. In execution of the said decree, the Judgment Creditor persuaded the Executing Court to issue Warrant of Attachment in respect of Flat No. 12-C, Atlas Apartment, First Floor, Harkeness Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006 on the assertion that the said flat belongs to defendant No. 3. Warrant of Attachment was issued on 15th May, 2002. Consequent thereto, warrant of sale in respect of the said premises was issued on 25th February, 2003. When the proceedings were in progress before the Commissioner, the third party/applicant filed objection on 19th May, 2003 to proceed with the warrant of sale on the assertion that the premises in question belong to Master Naman Madhav P...

Ramchandra Madhav Darunkar (Died) by His Lrs. Kalwati W/O Ramchandra D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR724; 2006(2)BomCR205; 2006(1)MhLj41

A.B. Naik, J. 1. These two Writ Petitions filed by the defendant and plaintiff respectively, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th June, 1988 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 415/1986. The appeal arose out of the judgment and decree dated 4-8-1986 passed by the 4th Joint. Civil Judge. J.D. Ahmednagar in RCS No. 662/1976, which arose on the following facts.2. The petitioner No. 1A is the heir of deceased defendant in Writ Petition No. 1593/1988 whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are original defendants Nos. 2 to 5. They will be referred to as their original status as 'defendants'. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 56/1989 are the heirs of original plaintiff. They will be referred to as 'the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of House bearing No. 2418; City Survey No. 1146 situated at Ahmednagar (proper) (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit house wa...