Mumbai Court September 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petroleum Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)565
2. The only effective ground of objection by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in holding that interest income amounting to Rs. 46,74,87,123 on advances given to Reliance Industries Ltd., Lavanya Holdings and Trading (P) Ltd. and Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. had not accrued to the assessee, though the AO had rejected the assessee's claim of non-accrual/receipt of interest from the above three companies.3. The case of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee-company itself had credited the interest income in its accounts, which are duly audited and subsequently, as an after thought, that the entries were reversed on 31st Oct., 1994, which was in the subsequent accounting year and the AO had rightly pierced the corporate veil and found that the assessee's claim of non-accrual of interest did not appear to be bona fide and correct. It is also the case of the Revenue that the CIT(A) ought to have ignored the agreement betw...
Metchem Canada Inc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)100ITD251(Mum.)
1. These three appeals, two by the Revenue and one by the assessee, involve a common issue. The short and neatly identified legal issue that we are required to adjudicate in all these appeals is whether or not the limitation on deduction of head office expenditure, as set out in Section 44C of the Indian IT Act, will apply in the case of non-resident companies governed by the India Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) [(1987) 164 ITR (St) 87], particularly in the light of non-discrimination clause in the said DTAA. This issue is raised by the Revenue by way of the following solitary ground of appeal : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 44C of the Act will not be applicable and the quantum of expenditure will be allowed without the restriction imposed by Section 44C.The assessee has raised the grievance by way of following grounds of appeal : The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's view that dedu...
Shashi Investment and Finance Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)5SOT403(Mum.)
The appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIX dated 8-10-2004 relating to assessment year 2001-02." 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the Income Tax Officer was right in disallowing loss of Rs. 6.60 crores, arising out of dealing in shares of Satyam Computers Ltd. 2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in dismissing the appeal on the alternative ground erred in holding that the loss was incurred without the actual delivery of shares which conclusion is contrary to the material on record." The basic facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading and investment in shares and securities. During the year the assessee has declared loss of Rs. 6.60 crores on sale of 41,250 shares of Satyam Computers. The assessee has also declared gain of Rs. 6,66,39,865 on sale of shares of other companies. The assessee has filed the details of sale and purchase of shares. The assessee has shown the purchas...
Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Kikabhai Premchand Trust and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR941; 2006(2)BomCR663; 2005(4)MhLj1149
ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Soni, Advocate waives service of rule for respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Mr. Hariani, Advocate waives service of rule for the respondent No.8. 2. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioner, who is a builder, has challenged the order dated 31st May, 2005, granting permission to the respondent No.1 -Sir Kikabhai Premchand Trust Settlement No.VI; hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust' to alienate its property for a consideration of Rs.35,70,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Crores Seventy lakh only) to the Respondent No.8 -M/s. Premsagar Hotels Pvt.Ltd.. The said property admeasures 5,39,595 sq.ft. and is situated at Yerawada, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, falls within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. The respondent No.1 Trust obtained offers from about six parties for sale of its property. These offers were not invited in pursuance of any advertisement in the newspapers due to past experience of the respondent Trust, which is set out in its affidavi...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Bom)28; [2006]284ITR679(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. By this reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal being the custodian of the I.T.Act, was right in law in holding that the provisions of I.T.Rules 87 and 88 and the Board's notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred u/s. 36(1)(iv) of the I.T.Act should be ignored as being conflict with the provisions of Section 36(1)(iv)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing as a deduction u/s. 37 of the I.T.Act the entire initial contribution to the superannuation fund in respect of liability as on the last day of the accounting year in respect of the entire service of the employees of the company, who were for the first time admitted to the benefits of the superannuation fund, as representing...
Divisional Controller, Msrtc Satara Division and ors. Vs. Prabhakar Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR549
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the labour Court at Sangli in Complaint (ULP) No. 8V of 1987 on 18th July, 1990 and duly confirmed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court vide his judgment and order dated 24th February, 1995 dismissing the Revision Application (ULP) No. 119 of 1990.2. The petitioner is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra providing road transport services to the public at large throughout the State. The respondent was employed as a conductor under the petitioner-Corporation since 1965. On 3rd December, 1986 when the respondent was on duty on the bus of the petitioner-Corporation plying from Karad to Killa-Machindragad, the bus was checked by the Inspector and it was found during the inspection that the respondent had collected some amount from some of the passengers but had not issued tickets to them. On this count, he was charge sheeted and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer held ...
Kalpataru Builders and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR751; 2005(6)BomCR787
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the assignees of the original lessees of a property owned by the Union of India situated in the Pune Cantonment Board area. It seeks a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition against the Respondents concerning the refusal of the Respondents to sanction the building plans submitted by the Petitioners. Amongst others, the Petitioners seek to challenge the resolution of the Cantonment Board dated 11th October 1996 rejecting the building plans of a commercial complex submitted by the Petitioners in view of the objection raised by the Respondent No. 3 - Defence Estate Officer under section 181(3) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to this petition are the Union of India, Director of Defence Estate, Pune, Defence Estate Officer (Pune Circle) and the General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command having his Head Office at Pune....
Tehmtan S/O Ardeshir Bomanji Irani and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR808
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Naik for the appellants, Mr. Walawalkar for the BMC and Mr. Godbole for Respondent Nos.2A to 2D. Both the appeals are filed by the original plaintiffs. They arise out of two suits. These plaintiffs had filed a suit vide Long Cause Suit No. 1914 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Bombay and, thereafter they filed another suit vide Long Cause Suit No. 1877 of 1985. First Appeal No. 970 of 1995 is arising out of the first suit and First Appeal No. 1075 of 1995 is arising out of the second suit. [I am referring the suits as 1st suit and 2nd suit and referring the parties plaintiffs and defendants because the plaintiffs and defendants are common in both the suits, though their number may change sometime]. 2. The dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants is about the immovable properties known as Irani Wadi situated at Mazgaon. The BMC/Respondent No. 1 came into picture in this dispute when they transferred the tenancy of this Irani Wadi i...
Dhansukhbhai Fakirbhai Patel Vs. Fakirbhai Dayabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR606; 2006(1)BomCR296; 2006(1)MhLj116
P.V. Kakade, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable in both the appeals by consent. 2. Both these appeals arise out of common Judgment passed by the District Court, Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvasa and therefore, both the appeals are taken up for hearing and are being heard and disposed of by this common Judgment. The District Judge, Silvasa by his common order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.1 of 2001 and Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001 allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Civilian Execution Proceeding (Misc. Application No.4 of 1993) and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for Court making necessary enquiry under Order 20 of Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, as regards the quantum of mesne profits. The impugned Order regarding remand of the decree to the Mamlatdar was set aside. 3. The facts involved in the dispute, in nut shell, are thus The original Defendant no.1 Fakirbhai has three sons, namely, plaintiff Dhansukhbhai, defendant no.2 Ashokbhai and...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maganlal Chaganlal P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR237; (2006)201CTR(Bom)130; [2006]284ITR663(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) is at the instance of the Revenue, arising out of the order in I.T.A.No.2848/Bom/1984 dated 16th November, 1987 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for short) for the Assessment Year 1975-76 whereby the following substantial questions of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where the assessee is a dealer in shares and holds certain shares as stock-in-trade, the interest paid by the assessee on the funds borrowed for the purpose of investment in such shares is to be allowed as admissible deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) and not under Section 57(1)(iii) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that where the assessee is a dealer in shares and holds certain shares as stock-in-trade, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »