Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Dukes Retreat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 4,55,985/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty-five thousand nine hundred eighty-five only) for the period July 1998 to March 1999 and Rs. 2,88,789/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty-eight thousand seven hundred eighty-nine only) for the period April to September 1999 and penalties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) respectively, arise out of a common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune, who has upheld the adjudication orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming service tax on the ground that the applicants who are running a holiday resort/ retreat at Khandala, were providing service as "mandap keepers" as they were also allowing customers availing of facilities such as boarding and lodging and use of recreation facilities, use of conference hall, free of charge (the applicants were charging their customers only for the stay and food/...

Mr. Shahrukh Khan Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)290ITR143(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against assessment order passed Under Section158BC r.w.s. 144 dated 23.01.1998.2. The first ground of the assessee is that the block assessment order was passed beyond the time permitted by law and the same was time barred and hence illegal and invalid.3. The brief facts, as stated and as borne from records are that a search had taken place at the residence cum office No. 702-A, 7th Floor, Amrit Bldg., Cater Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai on 18.12.1996 and continued till 19.12.1996. As per copy of F.No.45 (Authorisation warrant) filed by ld. CIT DR the search had taken place in lieu of the warrant of authorization dated 17.12.1996. Certain papers, files etc.were seized. Locker keys of locker No. 1719 of Hongkong Bank and No.1415 of Grindlays Bank were also seized and Panchanama was drawn on 19.12.1996 (copy of the Panchanama is placed at DR's Paper book Page 1 & 2). It was mentioned in the panchanma that the search has been temporarily co...

Mr. Saleem Fazelbhoy Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD167(Mum.)

1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to denial of assessee's claim Under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) with reference to the sum of Rs. 28,66,675/-.2. Briefly stated the facts are these: The assessee had sold 89,998 shares of Koyal Finvest Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 4,85,98,920/- in the year under consideration. He also purchased a flat in a building namely Samudra Mahal, situated at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs. 3,46,95,443/-. According to the assessee, this flat was in an inhabitable condition and, therefore, he had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 28,66,675/- in order to make the flat habitable. In the return filed, the assessee claimed exemption Under Section 54F in respect of both the amounts mentioned above. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to how the exemption could be allowed in respect of the sum of Rs. 28,66,675/- in response to the same, the assesse...

Santosh Jugal Kishor Ginoria Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3678

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Advocate Mr.Maqsood Khan for the petitioner and, learned APP Mrs.Pai for the State/respondents. Petitioner is the brother of detenu and his detention under the COFEPOSA Act is challenged by this petition. Mr.Maqsood Khan, appearing for the petitioner, raised three grounds in this regard.2. Firstly, according to the advocate for the petitioner, vital and important documents, relied upon by the detaining authority and referred to in the detention order, were not supplied to him and this has resulted his right of making an effective representation. Secondly, the detenu had sent one representation to the Advisory Board with a specific prayer not to forward his representation to the State Government. But the Advisory Board forwarded the representation to the State Government which ultimately rejected it and this has deprived the detenu of his right to make representation to the State Government at a time of his choice and it has deprived him of raising those ground be...

Shri Ashok S/O Pandurang Janjal Vs. the Secretary, Tulsabai Kawal Vidy ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR70; 2006(4)MhLj759

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. In this appeal notice was issued for final disposal of the matter at the admission stage and accordingly the matter was heard and is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. We have heard at length the Advocates for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 is a formal party.2. The appeal arises from the order dated 16-9-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 3368 of 1993. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has set aside the Judgment of the School Tribunal dated 1-10-1993 in Appeal No. 38 of 1989. The School Tribunal had set aside the order of the Management dated 6-4-1988 terminating the services of the appellant/petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in the post of peon as a probationer within 40 days. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the said order was stayed.3. The order of termination of services of the petitioner was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground of failure on the pa...

Francisco Jesus Hilario D'Cruz Vs. Lilia Pereira e Coutinho and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR90

Britto N.A., J.1. Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant who was the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 248/97/II. This second appeal was admitted on 13.06.2003 on two substantial questions of law, one of which reads as follows:1. Whether a preliminary decree ought to have been made and an inquiry be ordered to be held to assess the mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder and there- upon a final decree be made2. The respondents/defendants have chosen not to contest this second appeal. There is no dispute that the defendants were occupying the eastern portion of the house be- longing to the plaintiffs. It was the allegation of the plaintiff that four rooms of the western portion were in possession of the plaintiff but when the plaintiff returned from England in January 1990 or thereabout and went to the said western portion, he found that the defendants had tampered with the locks o...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. R.K. Furnaces and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR61; [2006(111)FLR478]

Desai Ranjana P., J.1. The appellants Employees State Insurance Corporation has challenged in this appeal, judgment and order dated 26-8-2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Insurance Court, North Goa at Panaji in ESIC No. 4/ 2000. This appeal is preferred under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'the said Act'). Under Section 82 of the said Act, an appeal lies to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. It would be, therefore, necessary to see whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law. Since, it is an appeal, before dealing with the rival contentions, I have not only perused the impugned judgment but also the records of the case and the deposition of the witnesses.2. Respondent 1 filed an application under Section 75 of the said Act, inter alia, for a declaration that the respondents are not covered under the provisions of the said Act. The appellants' case, ...

Chandrashekhar S/O Rangrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj711

S.P. Kukday, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail.2. Relevant facts stated in nutshell are that sister of applicant married respondent No. 2 on 20-1-2002. She was nicely treated for two-and-half year. Subsequently there was demand for dowry. Rupees 4 lakhs were demanded for setting up a Petrol Pump. Since complainant could not make payment of this amount, ill-treatment of deceased Sheetal continued till she expired on 2-11-2005. On 4-11-2005, applicant, Dr. Chandrashekar lodged report, on the basis of which offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered at Bhokardan Police Station. During the course of investigation respondents 2 to 4 filed an application for bail. The application was allowed by learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna by his order dated 10-11-2005. The applicant impugns this order on the ground that, (i) filing of the...

Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents Radhey Shyam Ratanlal had entered into a contract for import of one thousand tonnes of cloves of Indonesian origin at the rate of US $750 PMT CIF Mumbai for supply between July 1998 and February 1999. The importer however could import only 463.21 MT of cloves during the contract period which was assessed and cleared at the rate of US$ 750 PMT. Since the supplier was delaying the supply of balance quantity within the contract period, the importer pursued the matter through DGFT/ Embassy of India and thereafter the supplier shipped 63.46 MT cloves of Indonesian origin (during June 99 and 50.875 MT of cloves of Zanzibar origin during November 99 and the importer filed bill of entry claiming assessment at the contracted value of US $750 PMT. Since supplies were made beyond contracted period and there was an increasing trend of prices of these commodities in the international market, the department did not accept the declared value of US $750 PMT and sought to finalise t...

Maruti S/O Narsingrao Ladde Vs. Balakdas S/O Lakhan Meshram,

Court: Mumbai

K.J. Rohee, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 17.12.2004 in Revision (ULPN) No. 49/2004 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Bhandara, confirming the order of the Labour Court, Bhandara dated 29.9.2003 in Criminal Complaint (ULPA) No.22/2003.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to set out the facts:- Ashok Leyland United Employees' Union is a Representative Union under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for the local area of tahsil Lakhni, district Bhandara for Engineering Industry. A manufacturing concern of M/s Ashok Leyland Limited ( a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956) is situated in the said local area. The said Representative Union filed Complaint (ULPN) No. 729/2000 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur against Ashok Leyland Limited under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of...