Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Star India (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)103ITD73(Mum.)

1. The assessee as well as the Revenue have filed cross-appeal pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The assessee has also filed appeal for the asst. yr. 1997-98. These appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.First and the major issue, common to all the appeals of the assessee, relates to the date of accrual of commission income arising under the agreement.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee is a resident company engaged in the business of (i) procuring and collecting advertisement revenue on behalf of Satellite Television Asian Region Advertising Sales ("STAR"), BV ("SAS BV"); (ii) producing/procuring and supplying programmes to Satellite Television Asian Region Advertising Sales ("STAR"), Hong Kong; and (iii) acting as a licensee in India in respect of Star Movies pay channel.3. The assessee entered into an agreement on 31st May, 1994 with Star Advertising Sales BV of Netherland holding...

N.V. Shamsunder, Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Vs. Savitabai Wd/O Sambhirmal S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR139; 2006(5)MhLj639

A.P. Lavande, J.1. This revision application raises an important question of law as to whether a suit claiming compensation is maintainable against the Judge in respect of the alleged inaction on his part while discharging judicial function.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-11-1998 passed by the Joint Civil, Judge (Sr. Dn.,) Pusad in Special Civil Suit No. 32/96 dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant is the defendant No. 1, the respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 7 and 8 are the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the said suit. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to in their status in the trial Court.3. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for disposal of the Civil Revision Application are as follows:Respondents 1 to 6, being legal representatives of Gambhirmal Singhvi, filed the above suit claiming compensation of Rs. 51,688/- with interest thereon ag...

Mohammadiya Education Society and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR645; 2006(6)MhLj54

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. All three writ petitions were heard together, since the petitioners in all three writ petitions are similarly placed and they claim identical relief.2. All the petitioners are the Managements and educational institutions. They claim to be minority unaided institutions and to have been recognized as such, by the State Government. All of them are running colleges for two years diploma in teaching education (D.Ed.) course. They have approached this Court, because rules framed by the Maharashtra State Educational Research and Training Council for admissions to the said course in the academic year 2006-2007, prescribe quota of only 50 per cent seats to be filled in by the Management and 50 per cent to be filled in by the Government. Such a provision is contained more particularly in Clause 3(A)(4) of the Rules in question and hence, all the petitioners have prayed as follows:B. Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari to quash and s...

Status Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STT419

2. Prima facie we find that the agency functions proceed beyond the activities of Del Credere Agent. The Commissioner has confirmed the demand on the entire amount received for the services rendered by this agent. Prima facie we find that amounts received towards Del Credere Agency Service cannot be levied to service tax as held by the Tribunal in the case of Raja Rajeshwari International Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore the tax liability may arise. That will have to be heard and decided. In this view of the matter, we would consider that the applicant should be asked to pay a deposit of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) out of total service tax demand, penalty and other liabilities arrived as sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax. Subject to such deposit and compliance thereof reported on 27-9-2006 further pre-deposit of duty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal and the matter wou...

Classic Strips Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC396

2. The issue relates to fraudulent availment of modvat credit on invalid documents and imposition of penalty on the main appellant as well as co-noticees. We have perused the impuned order. After perusal of the same and the records, we find that the order of the Commissioner while dis-allowing the modvat credit is solely based on various oral statements. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the specific information that M/s. Classic Strips Pvt. Ltd. the manufacturer of Printed self-adhesive PVC stickers/stripes availed modvat / Cenvat facility under the then Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002). The impugned order does not appear to have discussed any documentary or corroborative evidence to sustain disallowance of the modvat credit.3. The appellants are non SSI unit and are availing the benefit of Cenvat credit scheme on the duty paid inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Some of their inputs are printing inks, dyes & ...

Caprihans (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC560

2. Vide Order No A-1286/WZB/2005/CIII dated 12.7.2005 a decision was arrived at after considering the Apex Court's decision in the case of Laminated Packing upholding that 'manufacture' under Central Excise Act, 1944 was called for in this case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for de novo adjudication, in terms, as mentioned in the subject order.3. In the present application filed, grounds have been taken that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Thane v. Caprihans India Ltd. on the issue of printing of PVC films which was rendered by one of the Benches of this Tribunal in appellant's own case on 12.11.2004 was not considered by the Bench, and therefore there is an error on the face of the record. The question of limitation and plea of classification under Heading 4901 are issues also which remain to be considered, are other grounds taken.4. After considering the records of the matter & considering the submission, we find that the said decision has not been cited...

Apar Industries Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC109

1. Heard both sides. The appellants cleared the impugned goods from their factory to a depot during the period Aug, 1996 to Oct, 1996 and paid duty as per the price declared by them for the ex-factory sale.Subsequently, the appellants have sold the impugned goods from the depot at a lower price. It is the contention of the appellants that since at the material time the depot was the place of removal under the law, they are entitled to the assessment at lower value and consequently, they are entitled for refund. The refund claim filed by the appellants has been rejected by the original authority and such rejection has been upheld by the lower appellate authority leading to these two appeals involving similar questions.2. We find that the lower appellate authority has held that sale from the depot can be considered as sale from the place of removal. He has also noted that under Section 4(4)(ba), the time of removal has been defined to be the time at which the goods are cleared from the ...

Dy. Cwt Vs. Mustaq Abdullah Khatri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These six appeals filed by the revenue are against the common order of Commissioner Wealth Tax (Appeals)-VH, Mumbai, dated 30-6-2004 relating to assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02. All the appeals related to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Despite service of notice none appeared for the assessee. We decided to dispose off this matter after hearing Shri Sandeep Kumar, departmental Representative and on merits of the case.3. In all the six appeals, the revenue has raised the under-mentioned common grounds of appeal: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law: (i) In treating two separate independent residential flats having separate kitchen, bathroom, bedroom as a single House and granting exemption under Section 5(1)(vi) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957. (ii) In treating that the assessee's flat at Jaipur exempt under Wealth Tax Act despite the fact tha...

Nh Securities Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are two cross appeals. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. These cross appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII at Mumbai dated 17-02-2004. The appeals arise out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of share and stock broking, investment and trading in shares and securities, etc. The assessee company is a member of National Stock Exchange. The assessee company has returned an income of Rs. 24,25,11,(sic) for the year under assessment. The assessment was completed after carrying out a special audit Under Section 142(2A) of the Act. The income has been finally assessed at Rs. 45,70,04,550.3. One of the major additions made by the assessing officer in finalising the impugned assessment is a sum of Rs. 21,02,77,135 made Under Section 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend.4. The assessee company (referred to as NHSL, for short) is having regular transactions with another...

Paschal Anthony D'Souza Vs. the Union of India (UOi) and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mrs. Pai appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. Heard by consent.2. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of one Charles Patrick S/o. Casey Patrick, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act'. The petitioner has challenged that order of detention dated 5.5.2006.3. The detenu has been detained on the grounds accompanying the detention order which include certain statements wherein he is said to have admitted to having effected fraudulent exports through M/s.Petrosolv India Company. The detenu was earlier detained under the COFEPOSA Act in the year 1994 and is being prosecuted by the Enforcement Directorate for involvement in a havala racket. The detenu having been released on bail by the Court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Third Court, on 30.12.2005 and the detaining autho...