Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Acrow India Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]298ITR447(Bom)

1. The appeal is taken on board for admission. Heard Mr. Kotangale for the appellant. Mr. Sathe appears for the respondent.2. The appeal is concerning the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1991-92. Two questions of law are sought to be raised. The second question is with respect to the part of the order of the Tribunal which directs the deletion of the addition of the sales tax from the total turnover for ascertaining deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All that the Tribunal has done is to follow the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. reported in : [2000]245ITR769(Bom) .3. The other question is with respect to the Tribunal's order directing the order of deletion of the addition of Rs. 17,79,248 being the value of closing stock. As far as this aspect is concerned, the statement given by the respondent-assessee to the bank is sought to be relied on by the Revenue...

Mahatma Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Cce (A)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an Appeals against the order of the Commissioner (A) No.SVS/104/NGP-II/2005 dated 20-4-2005 by which order of the Original authority No. 83/2001 dated 23-11-2001 was confirmed.2. None appeared for the appellants. Therefore, perused the records.Heard the ld. DR.3. The issue involved is as follows. The appellant company, a manufacturer of sugar were allotted export quota by the export agency under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958. The quantity to be exported was fixed by the Ministry of Food, Government of India. As per the law and regulations, the appellant company was entitled to clear sugar earmarked for export at a concessional rate of duty and the said quantity of sugar should have been handed over to the export agency or on their directions to other persons as nominated by them. In the given case, the appellants have not exported any quantity of sugar out of their total quantity of export quota allotted to them. They have not handed over any quantity of sugar to the...

Dr. Writer'S Food Products Pvt. Vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. P-II/044/2006 dated 28-2-2006.2. Heard both sides. It was felt that the appeal itself can be finally disposed of and accordingly pre-deposit is waived and appeal taken up for final hearing.3. Education cess was introduced in 2004. The appellants have taken credit of the education cess and used the same for paying duties of Central Excise other than education cess. The department has held that this is not regular.4. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Advocate submits that it was a mistaken utilization of the credit arising out of education cess for payment of other duty. It is only a technical error and if they pay the duty demanded in cash they shall be eligible for taking the credit as education cess credit and utilize the same for future payment of education cess on clearance of the goods. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).5. The learned DR submits that the prope...

Vinod G. Joshi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ115CAT

1. The applicants 10 in number have filed this O.A. challenging the Notification dated 27.6.2005 issued by Senior DOM (E) BCT convening the selection for formation of panel for filling up of 39 vacancies of passenger guard, in scale Rs. 5000-8000. They are also challenging the letter dated 09.3.2006 whereby panel of 24 candidates has been published. The applicants are seeking the following relief: (a). This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from respondents and after examining the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the Notification dated 27.6.2005 and Panel of Passenger Drivers (Goods) dated 09.3.2006 with all consequential benefits. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the official respondents to consider the case of the applicants for their lateral induction as Passenger Guards without subjecting them to written test and only by considering their record of service. (d) Since the cause of action, respondents and ...

Snehadeep Structures Private Limited a Company Incorporated Under the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR370; 2007(1)ARBLR333(Bom); 2007(1)BomCR663

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the interim award dated 16.6.2005 and the final award dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has denied the appellant's claim for interest based on the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the 'Interest Act'. 2. The appellant is a private limited company and is registered as a small scale industry. The respondent is a company wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra incorporated, inter alia, with the object of promoting small scale industries. In the usual course of business, the respondent was awarded a tender by Maharashtra State Electricity Board, for short 'MSEB'. MSEB placed three Work Orders upon the respondent as follows:1. Work Order No. 1166 dated 4th April 1991. 2. Work Order ...

Abdul Hannan Abdulhai Kadri Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through P.S.O.)

Court: Mumbai

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Advocate for the Appellant / accused and learned APP for the Respondents -State. 2. This is an Appeal by the accused challenging his conviction under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by which he is sentenced to imprisonment for life only under Section 302 of IPC in the judgment delivered by the Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane, on 16.3.2002. 3. The name of the victim is Raziya @ Raziv. She was engaged by the accused for doing the domestic work and accused used to teach her Kuran in the evening. According to the prosecution even though the accused was married, intimacy relationship was developed between the deceased Raziya and the accused. She became pregnant from the accused. The accused was promising that he would marry her but she found that he was avoiding to marry her. He killed her i.e. by strangulation and then cutting her entire body into pieces and then tried to dispose of or destroy the evidence. According to the prose...

Shri V. Venugopal and ors. Vs. Siemens Limited a Company Incorporated ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR93; 2007(1)BomCR602; [2007(113)FLR473]

R.M. Lodha, J.1. In the complaint filed by V. Venugopal on his own behalf and on behalf of 11 other employees under item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU & PULP Act, 1971'), the Industrial Court by its order dated 4.7.2001 directed Siemens Limited (for short the 'employer') to pay pension at the rate of Rs. 188/- per month from the date the said 12 employees attained the age of 60 years. The employees challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 4.7.2001 by filing the Writ Petition before this Court. The learned single Judge held that the employees were not entitled to pension under the scheme entitled 'Siemens Employees' Superannuation Fund' and, consequently, by judgement dated 24.4.2003, set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated 4.7.2001. The judgement of the learned single Judge is impugned by the employees in this appeal. 2. The following facts are not in di...

Yashwant Bapu Parit Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)MhLj834

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner has been convicted by JMFC in Regular Criminal Case No. 490 of 1984 for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 467, 471, 477A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said judgment and order, he preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and conviction recorded against the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sections 467, 471, 477A and 201 of Indian Penal Code were set aside. However, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. Conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate so far as these provisions was concerned was confirmed. Against aforesaid orders, present criminal revision application has been filed.3. Prosecution's case in brief is as under:Petitioner was working as an Honourary Secretary in Kumbhi Kasari Sugar Factory Workers Union Mandal at Kuditre, Tal :Karvir during the...

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. Vs. Shri Bhikanla ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR430

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th March 1998 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, holding the appellants guilty of the breach of undertaking given to the court and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short the C.P.C.').3. The respondent had a shop near Mulund Checknaka, LBS Road, Mulund West, Mumbai. It appears that in front of the said shop the respondent had carried out some construction illegally, without obtaining the necessary permission of the Mumbai Municipal corporation, the appellant No. 1 herein. It appears that the citizens in the locality made several complaints to the appellant No. 1 about the unauthorized constructions carried out by the respondent and other shopkeepers having shops in the line of the respondent. Apprehending that the appellant No. 1 and its officers would take action of demolition and remov...

Mohamad Naushad Vs. Anthony Carvalho

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC459

N.A. Britto, J.1. This revision is directed against order dated 12.7.2006, of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present revision.3. The petitioner is the complainant who prosecuted the accused for bouncing of a cheque bearing No. 877680 dated 30.7.2005, for Rs. 14,66,000/-. The learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by order dated 14.10.2005.4. The accused preferred a revision application against the said Order dated 14.10.2005 and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 12.7.2006, was pleased to allow the said revision and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate issuing process against the accused, In allowing the revision, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a bare reading of the complaint and also the documents relied upon by the complainant clearly indicate that the transaction of sale of the vessel was of...