Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Essar Shipping Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD71(Mum.)

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-I at Chennai on 20-11-1999 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a shipping company. The assessee-company had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring NIL income. The positive income was set off against the brought forward loss of the preceding assessment years. The return of income filed by the assessee-company was initially processed under Section 143(1)(a) with certain prima facie adjustments having been made. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act.3. In the course of assessment proceedings, among other things, the Assessing Officer has stressed on two items. The first item is that of the incidental expenses incurred by the assessee-company in selling four ships out of ...

The Dcit Vs. Koatex Infrastructure Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD510(Mum.)

1. Aggrieved with the deletion of penalty levied Under Section 158BFA(2) revenue is in appeal before us, against the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 25.2.02.2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent was associated with M/s. Seaking Infrastructure Ltd, which is a group concern and engaged in construction of sea port etc. A search Under Section 132(1) was carried out on the premises of group concern including the assessee on 23.2.99. In response to notice Under Section 158BC assessee has filed the return for the block on 4.4.2000 declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 2.60 crores. The ld. A.O has passed an order Under Section 158BC of the Act on 31.5.01 and determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 5,47,09,980/-. This order was not challenged in appeal. Since there is a difference in undisclosed income declared by the assessee and the one determined by the A.O, ld. A.O issued notice Under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act, inviting respondent's explanation as to why the penalty be not imposed....

Jcit, Sr-27 Vs. Essar Shipping Ltd. (South India

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-I at Chennai on 20-11-1999 and arises out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a shipping company. The assessee company had filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring NIL income. The positive income was set off against the brought forward loss of the preceding assessment years. The return of income filed by the assessee company was initially processed Under Section 143(1)(a) with certain prima facie adjustments having been made. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed Under Section 143(3) of the Act.3. In the course of assessment proceedings, among other things, the assessing officer has stressed on two items. The first item is that of the incidental expenses incurred by the assessee company in selling four ships out of ...

Mrs. Neelima Sadanand Vartak Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom431; 2005(4)ALLMR495; 2005(5)BomCR750; 2005(4)MhLj326

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition invoking Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Notification dated 1st June 2004 issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appointing respondent No. 8 as the Public Prosecutor for the District of Pune for a period of 3 years. The Notification is sought to be challenged as being in breach of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which contains the provision for the appointment of Public Prosecutors in the Districts under sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) thereof.2. The petitioner has been working as a Law Officer for the State in Pune District right from 1986. Presently, she is working as Additional Public Prosecutor. Respondent No. 1 to this petition is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2 is the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, respondent No. 3 is the Minister for Law and Justice, respondent No. 4 is the Minister for State of Law and respondent No. 5 is the Advocate General. Respondent Nos. 6 and...

HisamuddIn Abdul Rahim Kazi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR737

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The Petitioner herein is a Sub-Inspector of Police who joined the services of State of Maharashtra way back on 1st March 1967 and has been ordered to be compulsorily retired by an order dated 4th June 1987 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai after holding a departmental enquiry involving misconduct. The Petitioner preferred an internal Appeal to the State Government, but the same was dismissed on 18th December 1989. He filed an Application to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The same also came to be dismissed on 19th May 1999. He seeks to challenge all those orders and seeks reinstatement with full back wages.2. The Respondents to this petition are (1) State of Maharashtra (2) Deputy Commissioner of Police, who conducted the enquiry (3) Commissioner of Police who passed the order of punishment (4) Director General of Police (5) Home Minister (6) Joint Secretary, Home Department (7) Chief Secretary, Home Department, (8) Secretary, Home Department and ...

Mrs. Manorama Gopal Landge Vs. Somnath Dagdue Rane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR579; 2006(1)BomCR458; (2005)107BOMLR116

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner landlady has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, of India and sought to challenge judgment and order dated 31/6/2002, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kalyan, (Appellate Court), whereby judgment and decree passed by the . Civil _ Judge, J.D. Kalyan (trial Court), dated 7/12/1998 was set aside. Resultantly, the petitioner-landlady's suit stood dismissed an the ground of acquisition of alternative suitable accommodation for residence as contemplated under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act). Therefore the writ petition.2. The suit premises are consist of kitchen and one room on the ground floor of Manorama Niwas Raghuvir Nagar, Dombivali (E), District Thane. The monthly tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 75/- exclusive of Municipal Taxes and permitted increases. Some time in the year 1993, the respondent-tenant has acquired residential flat admeasuring 504 sq. feet, bearing NO. 8, on the...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)602; [2005]278ITR138(Bom)

1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of the order passed for the assessment year 1984-85 for the opinion of this Court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of the Income-tax Officer of a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs which is the premium the assessee had to pay on the debentures issued by it to the public for subscription at the time of their redemption and in allowing the amount to be spread over 7 years from the issue to redemption of the debentures ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,46,027 being the remuneration paid to the director during the year without the sanction of the Central Government ?'2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant-assessee submits that the applicant is not intere...

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Union Vs. Assistant Registrar of Unions and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR144; 2005(4)MhLj168

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Both these petitions involve a common question as to what is the 'local area' for registration as a representative Union for Cooperative Banking Industry (hereinafter referred to as the said Industry) under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and as such are heard and decided together. The rival Unions who claim to be registered as a representative Union for the local area in question are also common.2. The facts, in brief, in Writ Petition No. 2201 of 1998 are as under :-The respondent No. 2, Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank Union was registered as a representative Union for the entire Yavatmal district. However, the petitioner, Sahakari Bank Karmachari Union, Yavatmal applied to the respondent No. 1 for registration as a representative Union in the local areas of Umarkhed Taluka, Mahagaon Taluka, Digras Taluka, Ner Taluka, Babhulgaon Taluka, Relegaon Taluka, Kalamb Taluka, Ghatanji Taluka and Ma...

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. P. and O. Containers Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom65

S.B. Mhase, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel on 21/3/ 1998 below Exhibit-16 in Special Civil Suit No. 61/95, rejecting the Plaint under Order -VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 since the claim made by the appellants-plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs. 15,67,230.72/- with future interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from respondents was/is time-barred.2. Special Civil Suit No. 61/95 has been filed by the appellants on 20/6/1995 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,67,230.72 ps. and further interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum on Rs. 3,89,760/- from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation. The appellants carry on business as manufacturers of Purified Therpthlic Acid (P.T.A.) . One of the essential ingredients required by the appellant for the manufacturer of P. T. A. is Hydrobromic Acid. In August 1993, the appellants had placed an or...

Ashish Mines and Minerals and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR825; 2(2007)BC171

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed in Misc Application No. 489 of 2004 in Appeal No. 182 of 2004, by which the petitioners have been directed to deposit 50% of Rs. 1,38,61,800.72 within eight weeks with the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It may be pertinent to mention that according to respondent No. 1, the amount, which the Bank has to recover from the petitioners as on 2nd December, 1991, is Rs. 1,82,22,363.39. The brief facts which are relevant to recapitulate are as under:2. Respondent No. 1, Central Bank of India, on or about 25th May, 1985, agreed to grant and sanctioned to the petitioner credit facilities, inter alia, being following:(a) Cash Credit-cum-Packing Credit Facility up to a limit of Rs. 30,00,000/-:(b) An overdraft facility against receipted challans up to a limit of Rs. 15,00,000/-; and(c) A Term Loan of Rs. 9,50,000/-.3. The petitioners accepted and agreed to the terms and conditions of the grant of credit...