Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Smt. Pratibha Sheth and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)242; [2006]281ITR338(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dt. 27th April, 1993 (Exhibit 'F'), passed by the first respondent, the Appropriate Authority, appointed by the Central Government under Section 269UB of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') exercising right of pre-emptive purchase under Section 269UD(1) of the Act of the property in question owned by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for the apparent consideration of Rs. 24,00,000.The facts:The facts in short are:2. The petitioner No. 1 is an intending purchaser; whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and3 are the owners of the immovable property being residential apartment/flat admeasuring about 767 square feet situate at 103, Miranda Apartments, Veer Sawarkar Marg, Bombay-400 014 ('the said property').3. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 entered into an agreement of sale on 6th Feb., 1993 to sell their property for a total consideration of Rs. 24,00,000 in favour of petitioner No. 1. The entire payment of Rs. 24,00,000 was paid by the first petitioner to t...

Brahman Sahayak Sangh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR566; 2006(1)MhLj556

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard. The petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' inasmuch as that neither the petitioners were given personal hearing in spite of objections being filed to the Notification under Section 4, nor the objections which were available for consideration prior to submission of the report were considered while making report on Section 5A inquiry. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decisions in the matter of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi reported in : [1975]1SCR597 , Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Anr. v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr., reported in : [1977]1SCR71 , Khushalrao Tulshiramji Pandao and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 510, Vinayak Gopal Limaye v. Laxman Kashinath Athavale reported in : AIR1957Bom94 and Tej Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors....

Ramdularibai Badrilal Chaurasiya and ors. Vs. Mohan Shrimal Nahar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR751; 2006(2)BomCR130; 2006(1)MhLj358

A.B. Naik, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order dated 26th September, 1989 passed by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 341/1983, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge J. D., Bhusawal, in Regular Civil Suit No. 377/1980 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of Municipal House No. 2/28 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit house') which is in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. The parties to this judgment will be referred to as the 'plaintiffs' and 'defendant'. Most of the facts and findings arrived at are not disputed, which can be noted to understand the controversy raised in this petition.2. One Ramdularibai Badrilal Chaurasiya owned the suit house and the defendant was occupying the same as a tenant. As the defendant remained in arrears of rent from 6th July, 1978 till 22nd August...

Ramjan Raheman Tadvi and ors. Vs. Sou. Sarla Ramjan Tadvi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)DMC428

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Mr. S.P. Brahme, learned Counsel waives service for respondent. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 492 of 2004.3. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that, petitioner No. 1 married respondent about 20 to 22 years back at Bhusawal. On 19.1.2004 an agreement was executed on a stamp paper under which the respondent is purported to have given permission to petitioner No. 1 for marrying a second wife. Subsequently the petitioner No. 1 married a second wife on 22.2.2004. After the second marriage there were disputes between petitioner No. 1 and respondent, who were living together for 22 years since their marriage. As a consequence of this dispute, respondent filed complaint with police. As no cognizance was taken she approached the Court and filed Regular Criminal Case No. 492/2004 against th...

Parasrampuria Estate Developers P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.C. Prasad and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Bom)350; [2006]284ITR607(Bom)

1. These petitions arise out of the proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) seeking to acquire properties namely, flat Nos. 1301/1401 so far as writ Petition Nos. 2349 of 1993 is concerned with flat Nos. 903/1003 so far as Writ Petition No. 2348 of 1993 is concerned in Parasrampuria Tower No. 5, Oshiwara Village, Near Millat Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Bombay 400 058 ('the said property').2. The pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C was on the ground that the consideration disclosed in the sale documents fall short of the real market value of the properties.3. The potent contention amongst various others raised in these petitions, at the Bar, which alone is sufficient to dispose of these petitions, is that the amount of apparent consideration in both the petitions, as determined by the competent authority, had not at all been tendered by the Central Government to the parties to Form No. 37-I as was required to be tendere...

Hazel Mercantile Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT225Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 38,11,012/- (increased by corrigendum dated 23-8-2002 from Rs. 24,48,851.45 raised in the show cause notice) has been levied under the impugned order, under the provisions of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 together with interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 upon M/s. Hazel Mercantile Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the importers) on the ground that the Citric Acid imported by them was of Chinese origin and hence liable to levy of anti-dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 78/2000-Cus., dated 26-5-2000, which imposes on Citric Acid originating in, or exported from, the People's Republic of China and imported into India, an anti-dumping duty at the rate equivalent to the difference between US $ 1677.06 and the landed value of imports per metric tonne, where the landed value is less than the above amount calculated in US Dollar, and there is no dispute that the landed value of the imports in question is less than the above amoun...

Georges Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (A), Mumbai upholding the adjudication order by which the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. claimed by the appellants herein on flavouring extracts (ginger ale) was denied on the ground that the alcoholic content on the imported goods was 63.2% while the Notification excluded compound alcoholic preparation of kind used for the manufacture of beverages of an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 0.5% volume at 20 Degrees C.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence we heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. We see force in the submission of the Revenue that the alcoholic content of the product imported is required to be determined for the purpose of deciding whether the benefit under the Customs Notification is to be extended or not. We do not find force in the submission of the importer that the alcoholic strength of the end-product which is to be manufactured in India is relevant for...

Haridas Agrawal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants had imported a consignment of Galangal Roots and sought clearance vide BE No. 7638 dated 17/1/95, without production of any import license. The clearance was objected & imported goods ordered to be confiscated as it was viewed that even though Galangal Roots were a spice and is so known and traded in the market, yet it being specifically listed in Indian Material Medica as a drug (listed at sr.116, the Botanical name Alpinia Galangal, Wild or A Calcarata) as such, it is an Ayurvedic Drug (Crude) & the importation of same would need a specific license in term of para 156 part II Chapter XV Section A, (amended). The Appendix XLVIII lists crude drugs required for the manufacture of ayurvedic and unani medicines which can be imported without license subject to actual user condition is not available in this case as Galangal Roots do not figure in the specified list imports therefore would need a specific licence. The imports were confiscated under Section 111(d), &...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Sonall Share and Stock Brokers (P.)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT218(Mum.)

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 16-5-2002 for assessment year 1996-97. The proceedings arise out of assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.There are three grounds of appeal raised by the revenue but effectively the only grievance is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the pro rata allocation of expenditure relating to speculation business.The assessee had declared loss in share trading transactions at Rs. 2,93,732 which was increased by the assessing officer to Rs. 13,16,949.He held that the expenditure of Rs. 24,28,801 incurred by the assessee during the year is to be divided for earning brokerage income and also for making sale and purchase of shares on pro rata basis and as such he allocated proportionate establishment expenses to the trading of shares. Thereby the loss had increased to Rs. 13,16,949 as against Rs. 2,93,732 declared by the assessee, which is tr...

Biren V. Savla Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)1006

1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against three orders of CIT(A), each dt. 29th Oct., 2004 and raised the following common ground : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, and in view of very detailed submissions, evidences and decided legal cases, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,32,37,000 (1993-94)/Rs. 8,26,90,000 (1994-95)/Rs. 3,51,69,000 (1995-96) under Section 69 of the IT Act. 1994-95 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, and on submissions of the various evidence, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,000 on account of cash loans.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a finance broker. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 was carried out on 3rd Jan., 1995 and 4th Jan., 1995. During the course of search cash, jewellery was found and seized as detailed below : 3. In addition to the above, the authorized officers found incriminating documents which were m...