Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Sunash Investment Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)855

1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of CIT(A). Since these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate them one by one.2. This is an appeal by the assessee in quantum against the order of GIT(A) on various grounds, which are as under: (I) 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure as pertaining to acquisition of shares under Section 14A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the case of the appellant, since the interest expenses was business expense. 3. The appellant prays that it be held that the disallowance of interest expenses as above be deleted. (II) 1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of stamp duty of Rs. 71,156. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought have held that the expenditure was for the purpose of the appellant and hen...

Raj Marketing Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom76; 2007(3)ALLMR195; 2007(2)BomCR824; 2007(1)MhLj654

F.I. Rebello, J.1. On 31st October, 2006, the Respondent No. 2 visited the petitioners godown and seized various packages of packed commodities containing (1) Mangaldeep agarbattis, (2) Wholesale packages of Badam Halwa, (3) Wholesale packages of Candyman vide seizure receipt No. 0114769 dated 31st October, and (4) Wholesale packages of Mint-o Fresh, (5) Multi-piece packages of Wheat Atta. According to the affidavit filed by Govind Ananda Padhghan, Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology, Mumbai the reasons for seizure are as under:(a) On the packaged commodities containing Mangal Deep Puja Agarbattis the original MRP declared by manufacturer, is altered by affixing another sticker of Rs. 35/-on the original sticker. (b) On the wholesale packagers containing (2) Badam Halwa (3) Candy Man, (4) Minto fresh, the name and address of manufacturer is not declared. (c) On the multi-piece packages containing the Ashirwad whole wheat Atta the retail sale price is not declared. The details of seizu...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Gupta Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)74; [2008]297ITR310(Bom)

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though they are served. Respondent No. 4 however was deleted from the array of parties by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai whereby accused No. 1 to 4 were discharged from the prosecution which was launched by Income Tax Department under Section 276B read with 278B of Income Tax Act.2A. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are as under:Forty complaints were filed against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and original accused No. 4 under Section 276B read with 278B of Income Tax Act for not making the payment of tax deducted at source within prescribed time to the credit of Central Government. In these cases, application for discharge was filed by all the accused and it was contended that the amount in question was duly paid by the accused af...

Narendra Anantsing Kachave Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC188; 2007(1)BomCR972

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. This application is filed by the appellant for special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur whereby Sessions Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this application against acquittal are as under:Appellant is a proprietor of Narendra Enteiprises, Kisan Agro Agency, Mangalwedha. He filed complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the respondent No. 2 bearing S.T.C. No. 30/02 in which it was alleged that respondent No. 2 had purchased Drip Irrigation System from his shop worth Rs. 38,663/- and respondent No. 2 issued a cheque on 12.11.2001 for Rs. 20,5...

Pluto Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and NitIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise has disallowed inadmissible credit of Rs. 13,578/- on 1,437.50 kgs. of HDPE and LDPE granules found short at the time of stock verification, confirmed duty demand of Rs. 7,370/- (which is not contested), imposed penalty of Rs. 20,948/- being equal to the duty confirmed, confiscated raw materials/inputs covered by annexure E-1 to the show cause notice, valued at Rs. 1,44,066/- with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 45,000/- together with penalty of Rs. 30,000/-, confiscated excisable goods covered by annexure E-2 to the show cause notice, valued at Rs. 15,04,363/- with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the director of the assessee company.3. No case has been made out by the assessees for setting aside duty demand of Rs. 13,578/- - no objection was raised by the assessee at the time of drawing of panchnama, on the gr...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Satpuda Tapi Ssk Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ55CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. This appeal is filed by Revenue for setting aside penalty amount imposed under Section 76 of Service Tax Act. The assessee also filed cross objections against confirmation of service tax amount.2. The Respondent herein is a Co-operative Sugar Factory engaged in the manufacture of Sugar, Molasses etc. in its factory. It requires Sugarcane for the activity of manufacture and getting it transported to its factory from the farmers. According to the Respondent there was a tripartite agreement in between the goods transporter and farmers. The Respondent's factory used to pay the transport charges and advances on that account on behalf of the farmers and at the first instance deduct the same out of the amount of sugar cane purchased from the farmers.Therefore, contention of the Respondent is that neither it is a service receiver nor a service provider. Therefore, the respondent factory is in no-way liable for payment of service tax and requires registration for the purpo...

General Glass Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Mum.)854

1. This appeal requires our adjudication on two main issues - first, validity of the reassessment proceedings in this case, and, - second, ascertainment of the correct assessment year in which capital gains on sale of plot of land are to be taxed on the facts of this case. So far as merits of the case are concerned, there is no dispute about the chargeability of capital gains on sale of plot of land in question. The dispute is confined to the assessment year in which the capital gains are to be taxed, and, to be more specific, whether or not the capital gain in question can be taxed in the assessment year before us. The appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt.8th Nov., 2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr.1996-97. Grounds of appeal, as set out in the memorandum of appeal, are as follows: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CI...

Rajendra Zumber Jagtap and ors. Vs. Baramati Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Sabh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR842; [2007(112)FLR1003]; 2007(1)MhLj644

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The impugned order of the Single Judge came to be passed in Writ Petition No. 6154 of 2001 on 6.3.2002, by which the Writ Petition was dismissed, and therefore this Letters Patent Appeal.3. Respondent No. 1 is the Recognized Union, Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and the petitioners who are 25 in number are the employees of the said Sakhar Karkhana. Complaint came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 against the management on the ground that management has committed acts of unfair labour practices. Relief that was sought in the complaint was that members, on whose behalf the complaint was filed and who were enlisted in Annexure 'A' of the complaint, should be made permanent from the date of their appointment and they should be directed to be paid monetary benefits of permanent workmen.4. In the course of time or proceedings several workmen were m...

Shridhar Yeshwant Bhosale Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1380

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Appeal No. 889 of 2002 has been filed by the accused No. 1 and it was argued by Mr. Prashant Naik for the accused No. 1. Appeal No. 767 of 2002 is filed by Accused Nos. 2 and 3, it was argued by Mr. B. R. Patil. Arguments on behalf of the State were advanced by APP Mrs. G. P. Mulekar in both the Appeals.2. All these three accused have been convicted by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by Judgment dated 15.6.2002. They were convicted under Section 364A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine, they were also convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine. Accused No. 1 is also convicted under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine. All the substantive sentences to runconcurrently.3. Initially, the trial was against seven accused in all but accused Nos. 4 to 7 were acquitted of all the ch...

The Secretary, Late Sambhajirao Garad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR848; (2007)109BOMLR331

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the Parties.2. Rule By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2004 passed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 34 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the College Tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and has directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No. 1 with effect from 15.9.2000 with full backwages.4. Under the letter dated 7th November, 1998, the petitioners forwarded a draft advertisement to the respondent No. 2 for filling up various posts including the post of Lecturer for Geography in the College run by the petitioners. The draft advertisement indicated the pest of Lecturer for Geography as being reserved for the scheduled caste category. Under the letter dated 5th December, 1998 the University approved the draft with certain corrections and the past far Geography Lecturer post meant to be filled by a open categ...