Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Rao Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR297

1. The applications have been filed by the applicants for rectifying the mistake in the Tribunal's order No. A/908-910/WZB/06/CSTB dated 31-7-2006 [2007 (207) E.L.T. 241 (Tribunal)] for rectifying the mistake in the order, which according to them are apparent on the face of the records.2. We have heard Shri A. Hidyatullah, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Shri T. Gunashekharan, and Ms. Angha Gawde, Advocate. Shri Ajay Saxena.Ld. SDR appears for the Revenue.3. The appellant's main contention is that while holding that the equipment imported by them as not "Surface Dressing Equipment" and does not entitle to the benefit of notification, Tribunal has not considered letter dt. 4th June 1999 of Shri P.M. Ganatra, Project Director of National Highways Authority of India and as such, non-consideration of the above evidence is a mistake apparent on the record. It is also the contention of M/s. Rao Construction Pvt. Ltd. that the written submissions filed by them after the conclusion of the h...

Janak S. Rangwalla Vs. Asstt. Cit, Range-12(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai, dated 19-1-2004 relating to assessment year 2000-01 against the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) legally erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not allowing the set off of long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,02,31,691 against the short term capital gains of Rs. 1,47,15,196. 2. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) legally erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in treating the short-term capital gains of Rs. 1,47,15,196 as profit from share trading business. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) legally erred in not disposing of the additional grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on 19-10-2003. 4. On the facts and in ...

Marathwada GramIn Bank, a Scheduled Commercial Bank, Constituted Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom92; 2007(1)ALLMR500; 2007(1)BomCR819; (2007)109BOMLR141

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule in all the Petitions. Rule with the consent of the parties in all the Petitions made returnable forthwith and heard. The subject matter of the above Petitions are the assets of the Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Waghalwada Tq. Umari District Nanded. The said Petitions therefore raise common question of fact and law which according to us can be conveniently dealt with together and disposed of.2. Since the interest of each of the Petitioners in the above Petitions viz-a-viz the said assets is slightly different in its content it would be necessary to narrate such of the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issues raised in each of the said Petitions and the submissions of the learned Counsel in the said Petitions. Since in the process we would be concerned with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Securitisation and Reconstructions of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securitisation Interest Act, 2002 and also the Recov...

Vijay Narhar Pathak, Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR44

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgement in Sessions Case No. 125/1994 whereby the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 (present appellants) for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with 34 of IPC. Accused No. 1 Vijay came to be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 498A and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.Accused No. 2 Anil and accused No. Nalinibai are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, each for the offence under Section 498A and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.3. The facts of this case, in brief, are as under.Deceased Vasudha alias Vaishali married with accu...

Pan India Paryatan Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR233; 2007(4)MhLj202

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this common Judgment, we are disposing of Writ Petition No. 111 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 2009 of 1998, which involves interpretation of certain provisions of Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') pertaining to amusement park. 2. The undisputed facts are as follows:The Petitioners own and run an amusement park within limits of Greater Bombay, which opened to public for admission on 25th December,1989. The Petitioners charge a lumpsum amount for admission and entertainment to the amusement park, and are required to pay entertainment duty for admission to the park.3. The Petitioners, by a letter dated 4th October,1994 sought confirmation that entertainment tax to be levied at that time would be 3.75% of value of consolidated ticket. By a reply dated 12th October,1994, Respondent No. 2 confirmed the same. However, by a Communication dated 7th January,1995 by Respondent No. 3 in view of clarification received from Revenue a...

Kolhapur District Nagari Bank Vs. Vijay Shankar Chavan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC173; 2007(1)BomCR935

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard Mr. Borkar appearing in support of the application. The applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the 1st respondent. The order of acquittal is passed on the ground that though the applicant received the intimation of dishonour of the cheque on 6th November, 2002, the notice under Section 138(b) of the said Act of 1881 was issued on 22nd November, 2002.2. Mr. Borkar submitted that the register maintained by the applicant shows that in fact the intimation of dishonour was received on 11th November, 2002. He submitted that the intimation is issued on 6th November, 2002 and therefore, it is impossible that the intimation could have been received by the applicant on the same day. He submitted that what is mentioned in the deposition of the Manager of the applicant is the date mentioned on the memorandum of dishonour and not the date of the receipt thereof by the applicant. He submitted that the date on-which intim...

Usv Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)535

2. The first and second ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,79,876 in respect of employer's contribution and Rs. 4,05,635 in respect of employees' contribution to PF/FPF/ESIC paid by the assessee beyond the grace period allowed by the Central Government.3. We heard the rival submissions. The Tribunal is constantly taking the view that the employees' contribution if not paid within the due date extended by the grace period, the same is not allowable. As such, we remand the matter back to the file of AO as to verify whether the payments were made within the grace period. If so paid, it may be allowed. Coming to the employer's contribution, Tribunal is taking the view constantly that if the payment is made within (beyond) the year but before the due date for filing the return, to this extent assessee's claim is to be allowed. AO may verify the date of payment.If it is found that it is paid within (beyond)...

Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Joint Cit, Special Range-36

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD471(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of assessing officer under Section 115Q read with Section 115-O of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). The issue for our consideration is whether the assessee can be said to be in default under Section 115Q of the Act on account of non-payment of tax on distributed profits under Section 115-O of the Act in respect of payment made to Central Government out of the surplus profit.2. Brief facts of the case are these : The assessee, is a statutory Corporation, established by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 ('LIC Act') for carrying on the insurance business. Such business is governed by the Insurance Act, 1938. While examining the assessment record and the accompanying documents and details furnished by the assessee, the assessing officer noticed that it had distributed surplus income /profit to its sole shareholder i.e., a Government of India as per Sections 28 and 28A of Life Insurance Corpora...

St. Ulai High School Through Its Principal and Shri Adishakti Hindi Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR1; 2007(1)BomCR540; (2007)109BOMLR60; 2007(1)MhLj597

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Reference to the Full Bench:1.1 This reference before the Full Bench raises principally, the issue as to whether a suit is maintainable in a Civil Court in respect of matters set out in Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rule 12 of the Rules framed thereunder.1.2 The First Respondent was employed by the Appellants as an Assistant Teacher on 2nd July 1993 on a temporary basis and his appointment was renewed for terms of 11 months until 30th April 1997. On 18th March 1997, the services of the First Respondent were dispensed with. The First Respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane, seeking a declaration that the communication dated 18th March 1997 is illegal and void; a decree and order to the effect that he is a permanent employee of the educational institution, entitled to the benefits available under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The ...

Balasaheb Anantrao Bahirat Vs. Rohidas Bapusaheb Tupe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR839

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. Since common question of law and facts arises in both the petitions and it pertain to the same premises, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.4. The petitioner challenges the judgment and decree of eviction passed against the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court as well as the order of fixation of standard rent passed by the Trial Court and up-held by the lower Appellate Court. The eviction has been ordered on two grounds. Firstly on account of default in payment of rent and secondly on the ground of bonafide need of the premises to the land-lord.5. The challenge to the decree of eviction is two fold. Firstly that the proceedings initiated by the respondent land-lord were admittedly under old Rent Act namely. The Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947, however, the same were initiated after the commencemen...