Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bombay Isle Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kamladevi Jagdish Diwan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR303; 2006(5)BomCR704; 2006(4)MhLj115
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the materials placed on record. This Appeal by the original defendant No. 1 takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the City Civil Judge dated 2nd March, 2006 in Notice of Motion No. 3454 of 2005 in L.C. Suit No. 3105 of 2005. By this impugned order, Trial Court has dismissed the Notice of Motion taken out by the defendant No. 1 for referring the matter to Arbitration in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966. The Trial Court has in the first place found that several issues have been raised in the suit which cannot be adjudicated in arbitration proceedings. Besides, the cause of action for instituting the suit against the other defendants who are not party to the Arbitration agreement is inseparable. On that finding, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr. reported in 2003(3) ALL MR 325 (SC) it is...
Sun Polytron Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC65
1. The brief facts of the case of the Central Excise Officer intercepted 3 trucks containing POY cleared by M/s Sun Polytron Inds.Ltd.. Silvassa to M/s Gold Multifab Ltd., Surat. At the time of interception the goods were accompanied by invoice No. 632, 603, 604 and AR-3A No. 1, 2, 3 all dated 23.07.2003. On enquiry it was stated that the said goods were cleared against CT-3 certificate No. 6 dated 03.02.2003 issued to the said unit which was valid for 90 days which had already expired. Further verification was done at M/s Gold Multifab wherein its Director Shri Alok Kalawat informed that the said invoices and AR-3A were fake and were prepared only for transportation of goods from Silvassa to Surat for diversion of the same into the open market, The officer there upon seized imported POY weighing 19737.270 Kgs.valued at Rs. 14,80,295/-. A show cause notice was issued on 20.01.2004 seeking to confiscate the goods and to demand duty amounting to Rs. 12,12,287/- leviable on the goods and...
Jamnadas Morarjee and Co. Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)104ITD257(Mum.)
1. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is whether the Learned CIT (A) was justified in rejecting the claim of refund of Rs. 7.50 lacs by upholding the order of Assessing Officer.2. The brief facts as noted by the Learned CIT (A) are, that the assessee firm had been assessed for the block period ending 4.12.1997 vide order of DCIT, Central Circle-34, Mumbai, dated 29.2.2000. The block assessment resulted in a demand of Rs. 19.99 lacs. There was also a demand of Rs. 1.59 lacs against the assessee in respect of Assessment Year 1997-98. The Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 11.8.2000 required the assessee to pay 50% of the demand pending disposal of first appeal. The subject of this letter was written as "Arrears of taxes for block period & for AY 1997-98 - reg." In partial compliance with this direction the assessee paid Rs. 1.50 lacs per month for 5 months starting from 19.10.2000. The aggregate amount so paid by February 2001 came to Rs. 7.50 lacs. However, the...
Concepta Cables Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)101ITD143(Mum.)
1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-VII, Mumbai dated 19-6-2001 for assessment year 1998-99. The only ground raised by the assessee reads as under: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing Rs. 46,77,500 being provision for irrecoverable advances made in the ordinary course of appellants business inter alia on the ground that such provision is a contingent liability and in ignoring that such provision was made in accordance with the Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). (ii) The appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs. 46,77,500 be deleted.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company is non-banking financial company (NBFC). The assessee furnished its return of income on 27-11 -1998 declaring total incorne at Rs. Nil. In course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the...
Jamnadas Morarjee and Co. Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-34
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)9SOT254(Mum.)
The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the claim of refund of Rs. 7.50 lakhs by upholding the order of assessing officer.The brief facts as noted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are, that the assessee-firm had been assessed for the block period ending 4-12-1997 vide order of DCIT, Central Circle-34, Mumbai, dated 29-2-2000. The block assessment resulted in a demand of Rs. 19.99 lakhs. There was also a demand of Rs. 1.59 lakhs against the assessee in respect of assessment year 1997-98. The assessing officer, vide letter dated 11 -8-2000 required the assessee to pay 50 per cent of the demand pending disposal of first appeal. The subject of this letter was written as "Arrears of taxes for block period and for assessment year 1997-98 - reg." In partial compliance with this direction he assessee paid Rs. 1.50 lakhs per month for 5 months starting from 19-10-2000.The aggregate amount so paid by Feb...
Motilal Oswal Vs. Additional Cit, S.R. 49
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)8SOT771(Mum.)
By this miscellaneous application filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 31-8-2005 in ITA Nos. 3860 to 3863/Mum./2001, assessee has sought rectification of the order of the Tribunal on the ground that an error apparent from the record is crept therein.During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the fact that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Motilal Oswal, a proprietor concern which is doing business on the Bombay Stock Exchange of buying and selling shares on behalf of various large institutional clients, high net worth individuals and various other parties in return for brokerage which is duly offered for taxation as business income from year to year. That apart, the assessee has also invested- his personal surplus funds in shares, which are held by him as investments. The assessee maintained two separate books of account, one for his proprietary concern and the other fo...
PravIn S/O Govind Kalbhor Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR6; 2006(3)BomCR78; 2006(3)MhLj753
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. By order dated 28th February, 2006 passed in the Notice of Motion No. 108 of 2006 we had directed that this Writ Petition will be listed for final hearing alongwith Notice of Motion. Accordingly, we have taken up this Petition for final hearing.2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has taken exception to orders dated 11th February, 1994 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the first Respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation by which the the Applications made by the Petitioner herein and twenty-seven other persons whose names appear in Exhibit A to the Petition for regularisation of their structures/stalls were rejected.3. The Petitioner has filed this Petition by invoking provisions of order 1 Rule VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In prayer (a) of the Petition, the Petitioner has sought leave to file this Petition on behalf of himself and on behalf of all stall owners mentioned in Exhibit A to the Petition...
Pralhad (Dr.) S/O Sukhdeorao Malusare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR293; 2006(3)MhLj541
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. P. C. Marpakwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Wandile, learned AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Munshi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th October, 2002, passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Transfer Application No. 661/1992 came to be dismissed. Mr. Marpakwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer in the Maharashtra Medical and Health Services Class-II on the basis of the recommendations of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission vide order dated 9-7-1982 on probation for a period of two years. It is contended that the respondent vide order dated 18th August, 1982, cancelled the order of appointment dated 9th July, 1982 and vide order dated 26-3-1984 issued by the State Government, services of the petitioner came to be terminated. It is contended that the order of termination was...
Uma Corporation Vs. Krishna Prabhakar, Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Bom)282; [2006]284ITR67(Bom)
1. Heard Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.M. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. By consent, rule is heard finally at this stage.4. On March 7, 2006, we passed the following order :1. Inter alia, contention of Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the application made by the assessee, the Commissioner granted certificate to the assessee setting forth the voluntary disclosure of income and the income-tax paid for the same. He states that the said certificate holds the field and has not been cancelled as yet. His submission is that as per Section 68 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (Finance Act, 1997) the amount of voluntarily disclosed income shall not be included in the total income of the declarant for any assessment year under the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 impugned in the present writ petition is w...
The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Panetrical Engg. Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2006
Reported in: 2006(204)ELT397(Bom); 2006[4]STR422
ORDER1. Heard Mr. K.R. Chaudhari, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.H. Patil, the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The Tribunal considered the entire material and then in paragraph 2.1 recorded the finding concerning the independent status of (i) M/s. Penetrical Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/s. Zenith Engineering and (iii) M/s. Pradnya Engineering. On consideration of the entire material, the Tribunal held that the dummy nature of M/s. Zenith Engineering and M/s. Zenith Engineering and M/s. Pradnya Engineering cannot be upheld. This is how the Tribunal dealt with the aspect;(d) PEP is a Private Limited Company with two Directors, having its own machinery and existence. Its independence is not being questioned.(e) M/s Zenith is a sole proprietary concern of Mrs. M. Bolinikar, who happens to be the wife of one of the Directors of PEP. It was started in 1995, was purchased by the Proprietor and shifted to its now address at Gale No. 2, Single Estate, Kandivli (E) which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »