Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Asstt. Cit, Range 10(1) Vs. Citicorp Finance (India Ltd.)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD457(Mum.)

1. The department has filed the present appeal on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow deduction of Rs. 1,94,96,945 on account of the provisions for accrued expenses which was correctly disallowed by the assessing officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow exemption under Section 10(33) in respect of whole dividend income of Rs, 4,85,24,362 instead of the net income rightly determined by the assessing officer at Rs. 1, 17,21,951 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee- company was engaged in the business of providing financial services like commercial vehicle financing, equipment finance, advances against financial assets and inter-corporate loans and deposits. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the as...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Crystal Granite and Marble Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The department has filed the present appeal on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C with reference to total income computed under Section 115JA, without appreciation the provisions of Section 115JA(4) providing that all other provisions of the Act shall apply which assumes significance in view of there being no such provision in Section 115J." 2. The short issue in the case before us is whether the assessing officer is justified in charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C on the taxes levied under Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the assessing officer is not justified in charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act on the book profits computed under Section 115JA.3. Learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the decision of the Honbl...

Smt. Sheela Subhash Sali Vs. Commissioner, Nasik Municipal Corporation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR305; 2007(1)BomCR623

B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.1. This petition filed under the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India brings in question the order of promotion to the post of Resident Medical Officer (Clinic) passed in favour of respondent No.2 on 26/8/1997. 2. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1, Corporation (Nasik Municipal Corporation) as Medical Officer with effect from 27/6/1983 in the pay scale of Rs. 500-20-700-EB-25-900 with other allowances as permissible and this appointment was under reservation quota, as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The respondent No.2 came to be appointed as Medical Officer on 22/9/1983 by the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation in the very same pay scale and under the quota of Scheduled Caste, as he also belongs to the same category. Both of them completed the qualifying service for promotion to the post of RMO when the Deputy Commissioner of Respondent No.1 Corporation by his letter dated 28/7/1994 informed the Medical Superintendent of the...

Shri Mihir Yadunath Thatte Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Secre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR537

R.M. Lodha , J. 1. By means of this writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner challenges the action of the State Government (Respondent No. 1) under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, `the Town Planning Act') in excluding the plot bearing Survey No.86 (Part) Parvati admeasuring 1.75 hectares from Hill Top Hill Slope Zone (HTHS Zone) and inclusion of the same in the Residential Zone of the city of Pune. 2. The petitioner claims to be renowned freelance Journalist. He is Trustee Secretary of a Trust named Rashtra Seva Pratisthan. He also claims to be a Trustee of Acharya Anand Rishiji Blood Bank at Pune. He claims to be the member of the Managing Committee of an organization 'Hridayankit' founded to help cardiac patients from amongst down trodden. According to him, he has all along been in the forefront in Mr. Anna Hazare's drive against corruption and has, on his behalf, led several agitations in Pune. He is reside...

Sadanand Varde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR101; 2007(1)BomCR810

1. The Petitioners are tax payers of the of Maharashtra and rate-payers of Respondent No. 2. All of them are nationals and citizens of India, and have been active in agitating various social issues. By the present petition, they have sought quashing of notification dated 25th January 1999, whereby modifications have been made to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. Regulation 31 was modified by adding a proviso making non applicable height restrictions for reconstruction and redevelopment of old buildings undertaken under Regulation 33(7), 33(8) and 33(9) and which are not affected by the Costal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19th February 1991, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, and orders issued from time to time. Similarly, Regulation 59 was modified, pursuant to which restrictions on height were not to be made applicable for reconstruction and redevelopment of old buildings undertaken under Regulation 33(7), 33(8) and...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kirloskar Ebara Pumps Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ329CESTAT(Mum.)bai

2. It is seen that the period involved in the present case is July 97 to January 2003. The activity of commissioning and installation were brought within the purview of the Service Tax with effect from 13-5-2004 as per the Circular No. 79/9/2004- S.T. Both sides agree that the Service Tax collected prior to this date is without any authority of law. That being the position, the question of unjust enrichment will not arise in this case in view of para 104 of Apex Court decision in the case of Mafatlal case reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). As such, the order of the adjudicating authority directing to credit the amount in the "Consumer Welfare Fund" is not legally correct. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly decided that the amount should be refunded to the respondent.3. I agree with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue....

Shramdeep Manpower Consultancy Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STR49

2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant interalia submits that the entire Service Tax has already been paid along with interest before issue of the show cause notice. In addition, he also submits that the entire amount of penalty under Section 78 has also been paid. He is not contesting the Service Tax plus interest and penalty under Section 78.He is contesting penalty under Section 76. He admits that there has been a delay of 4 years in making payment of Service Tax due to bonafide belief that the appellants were not liable to pay Service Tax.However, he submits that the appellants have paid the Service Tax before issue of the show cause notice and also the penalty imposed under Section 78. He submits that lenient view may be taken so far as penalty under Section 76 is concerned.4. After hearing and perusal of the records and keeping in view the fact that the entire amount of Service Tax has been paid with interest in addition to penalty under Section 78 before the issue of show cause n...

Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC178

1. The impugned order under challenge confirmed demand Customs duty of Rs. 2,06,97,320;- and also imposed personal penalty of identical amount upon M/s Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. The goods imported by them during the period September 1998 to September 2002 stands confiscated with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20 Lakhs. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 10.000/- each has been imposed upon the other two appellants in terms of the provision of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. As per facts on record appellants are engaged in importing and trading of various equipments, which are being supplied by them mainly to the broadcasting industry. Admittedly the equipments which are mainly and basically meant for broadcasting are being classified by them as broadcasting equipments and duty paid accordingly. However, the dispute in the present appeal relates to some of the equipments imported and declared by the appellants as automatic da...

Kamal Photo Studio, Rupam Colour Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ100CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are stated to have been filed by M/s. Kamal Photo Studio and Colour Lab., M/s. Rupam Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Snap Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. I find from these three appeals that no cause title has been indicated in them. Thus, there is a glaring mistakes in these appeals and neither the registry nor the DR appearing for the Revenue have taken note of it. The appellants are directed to file fresh appeals by an officer duly authorized by the Company under the board resolution or the article of association as the case may be. It may be made clear that if the appeals are not filed by the competent officer duly authorized by the Company, the same will be dismissed without any further notice. The Revenue may file their objections if any, within 15 days of filing of the fresh appeals. Case is adjourned to 08.01.2007....

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Bombay Offshore Project, O.N.G.C. Vs. M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR342; 2007(1)BomCR66

R.M. Lodha, J.] 1. In the contract given by the appellants to the respondents pertaining to design and execution of fixed platforms and other installations in the Bombay Offshore on the West and East coast for the field season 1980-81, the dispute arose between the parties. The respondent claimed the amount for extra work and interest for delayed payment. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the respondents as 'the claimants' and the appellants as 'the ONGC' hereinafter. 2. The dispute was referred to the arbitrators who passed an Award on 29th February, 1988, directing the ONGC to pay to the claimants: 1) US $ 1,804.50 being interest on US $ 40,102.97 at 12% p.a. from 1/12/1985 to 16/4/1086 and 2) US $ 59,593 being interest on US $ 3,12,011.50 at 12% p.a. from 3/5/1983 to 5/11/1984. The interest on the amount as per the Award was awarded at 12% p.a. from the date of the Award till realisation. 3. The ONGC petitioned for setting aside the Award by filing Arbitration Petition No....