Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Mohan T. Advani Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds, which are as under "I1 The Commissioner (Appeals)-l erred in confirming the order of the Income Tax Officer in relation to disallowance of interest expenses purportedly relatable to earning of income to the extent of Rs. 19,21,182. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that no such disallowance, was called for since the appellant had paid interest on borrowings which were used for the purpose of investment and finance activities of the company and which was the business of the company and hence the interest expense was allowable as normal business expenditure of the company. 3. The appellant prays that it be held that the said interest expense of Rs. 19,21,182 be allowed as business expenditure. II.1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming restriction of exemption for dividend income under Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 10,29,437 against...

Nachik Colour (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-VIII, Mumbai, dated 8-6-2005 relating to assessment year 2001-02.2. The only ground of appeal raised by the assessee is with regard to the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act in respect of Achhad Unit-II claimed at Rs. 1,10,70,072.3. Mr. Arvind Sonde, learned Authorised Representative appeared for the assessee and Mr. Durgesh Sumrott, departmental Representative appeared for the revenue.4. We have heard the rival submissions. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 1,10,70,072 for Achhad Unit-II at the 30 per cent of the gross total income of Rs. 3,69,00,240. The search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were conducted on the group concerns of the assessee mainly on the allegation of claim of wrong deduction under Section 80HH/80-I of ...

Shri Mishrimal Jethmal Oswal Vs. the Municipal Council of Lonavala, Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom190; 2006(3)ALLMR18; 2006(3)BomCR156; 2006(3)MhLj609

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The principal question, which arises for determination in this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is whether the Judgment prepared by a member of the Division Bench and thereafter signed by the other member can be pronounced by him even after the other member of the Bench ceases to be a Judge of this Court. The question as to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal (for short, 'LPA') was also raised, in the course of arguments, contending that by no stretch of imagination the order, impugned in the appeal, can be treated as a Judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The factual matrix, giving rise to the aforesaid questions, briefly stated, is as follows. A Division Bench of the learned Chief Justice Mr Dalveer Bhandari (as His Lordship then was) and Mr S.J. Vazifdar, J. heard Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2005 and upon conclusion of the arguments, reserved the judgment. The judgment was thereafter prepared by S.J.Vazif...

Qmax Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR27; 2006(2)BomCR752; 2006(3)MhLj281

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have taken exception to the action of the Respondent No. 1-The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of appointing the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as consultants for the work of quality audit of road works in the city of Mumbai and suburbs. The challenge in this Petition is mainly on the ground that the contracts have been awarded to the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 without inviting tenders as required by Section 72 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act). The contract involves public money to the tune of rupees four crores.2. The first Respondent has undertaken a massive programme of improvement of roads. Normally the work of construction and/or repairs of roads is supervised by the Municipal Officers and is randomly checked by the Vigilance Department of the first Respondent. As there was a criticism of general road conditions in city of Mumbai, the f...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pritam Rajiv Shetty and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)ACC636; 2007ACJ444; 2006(4)BomCR863; 2006(3)MhLj237

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment and order dated 19th and 21st June, 2002 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Application No. 2201 of 1994. By the impugned judgment the appellant and respondent No. 2 - driver/owner of the two wheeler, involved in the accident, are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay, to the claimant - respondent No. 1, the compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. Leave to defend respondent No. 2 as contemplated under Section 170 of the Act was granted to the appellant.2. Few facts may be stated in order to better comprehend the question posed before us. On 13-1-1994 at about 5.45 p.m. the claimant - respondent No. 1 was pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing registration No. MH-02-D-6643 driven by respondent No. 2. He was allegedly driving at a...

Jayashree L. Katare Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)MhLj433

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner has passed M.B.B.S. examination and also completed Diploma in Public Health. Petitioner belongs to notified NT-C category. From the year 1990 upto the year 1994, the 'Dhanagar' caste came to be included in NT category and continues to be so. The NT category in the year 1994 came to be bifurcated as NT-A, NT-B, NT-C and NT-D. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, she falls in a category of NT-C which carries reservation of 3.5%. The case of the petitioner is that on 100 pt. roster, there ought to be reservation of 3 to 4 posts out of 100. On 29-3-1997, the respondent-State passed a resolution providing for 100 pt. Roster system to be made applicable to direct recruitment and 50 pt. roster system for the purpose of promotions. The G.R. also provided that the backlog, if any, for direct appointments should be considered while implementing the said G.R.3. It is the case of the petitioner that between the year 1994 to 1998, 97+3 posts...

Jashan Textile Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Bom)22; [2006]284ITR542(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, both these petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as also the order passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners for reopening the assessments for the assessment year 1998-99 and the assessment year 1999-2000.3. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are more or less similar, for the sake of convenience in this judgment, we set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 3152 of 2005. The decision in Writ Petition No. 3152 of 2005 will apply to Writ Petition No. 3153 of 2005 as well.4. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the return filed by the petitioner was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act and an assessment order was passed accordingly by the Assessing Officer on January 23, 2001.5...

Shubham Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR586; 2006(6)BomCR349; 2006(44)MhLj148

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 591 of 2004 the management has challenged judgment delivered on 9th January, 2003 by School Tribunal Nagpur, in Appeal No. 19 of 2002 ordering the management to continue Shri Tumane, appellant before it as Peon. In Writ Petition 355 of 2004, the very same management is challenging the judgment dated 28-4-2003 of same Tribunal asking it to reinstate Shri Pathan as Peon with continuity and full backwages. These judgments of School Tribunal are delivered in Appeals under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act). The basic defence of management appears to be that both these employees are to be reinstated against only one i.e. same post. It appears that on 4-10-2005, this Court directed the petitions to be heard in January, 2006.2. It appears that on 22-5-1989 Shri Pathan came to be appointed as Peon and he was terminated on 10-8-1993. After his ...

Angha Ajit Bhatkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR865; 2006(6)MhLj13

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 17th December, 2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, holding that the petitioner was disqualified to be a councillor by virtue of Section 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (for short the Z.P. Act).Facts giving rise to the petition are stated below:3. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Raigad Zilla Parishad. The husband of the petitioner at the relevant time was the owner of two immovable properties bearing House Nos. 320 and 536 situated at village Bagmandle Taluka Shrivardhan District Raigad, falling under the jurisdiction of Raigad Zilla Parishad. Two bills bearing bill Nos. 514 and 742 dated 10th May, 2002 and 25th May, 2002 respectively were issued to the husband of the petitioner for the property tax for the financial year 2002-2003. The bills were served on the hus...

Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR736; 2007(3)BomCR898

Dharmadhikaari B.P., J.1. All these three writ petitions have been heard together as issues involved therein are same. Parties have treated Writ Petition 2593/ 1997 as main writ petition. This writ petition is filed by Builders Association of India, Mumbai with its 36 members as Petitioners against Union of India, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and other officers under him for the writ of mandamus directing them not to enforce amended Para 26(2) of Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (referred to as 1952 scheme) framed under Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act (referred to as PF Act) in so far as temporary and/or casual site-workers engaged in multi-tier system in business system of petitioners. Further relief sought is that such workers should not be required to become members of said 1952 scheme. An order dated 23/12/1994 passed by Joint Secretary of respondent No. 1 under Section 19-A of P.F. Act is also sought to be quashed and set aside. It appears that the members of...