Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Metro Auto Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Bom)581; [2006]286ITR618(Bom)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel are heard.2. The income of the petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 1999-2000 and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, who assessed the income, held that the assessee had reduced Rs. 2,00,000 on account of old stocks, but there was no justification to it. He, therefore, made addition of Rs. 2,00,000 while making the assessment.3 This order was carried in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner vide his order dated October 10, 2003. The Revenue carried a further appeal to the Tribunal and that appeal is pending. During the pendency of this appeal filed by the Revenue, a notice has been issued to the petitioner on February 13, 2006 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is this notice which is under challenge in the present petition.4. Mr. Sathe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, points out that when the proceedings filed by the Department are ...

R.B. Contractors, Yavatmal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR209; 2007(2)BomCR466; 2007(2)CTLJ132(Bom); 2006(6)MhLj316

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. B. Choudhari, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Atul Pande, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is proprietary firm and is engaged in construction of roads since last five years. The petitioner has satisfactorily executed contracts of construction of road, not only with respondent but with other departments of the local bodies, such as Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal as well as Municipal Council, Yavatmal.3. On 20-12-2005 a tender notice was published by respondent No. 2 by which sealed tenders for work of providing B.T. Renewal to Nagpur Bori Tuljapur Road, MSH No. 3 in Km. 180/00 to 184/00 Km. 187/00 to 191/00, Km. 199/00 to 203/99 and Pitching and construction of Gabian and Protection Wall with repairs to approa...

Dwarkabai W/O Karbhari Gangarde Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR132; 2006(6)MhLj604

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. P.M. Yelnurkar, instructed by learned Counsel Mr. M.P. Harjule, who appears for the appellant and learned A.G.P. Mrs. P.R. Mane for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division in Review Application No. 93 of 1986 on 31st July, 1987. The appellant was the petitioner and the respondent was the Opponent in Review Application No. 93 of 1986. The parties, hereinafter, are referred to their status in Review Application No. 93 of 1986, as petitioner and opponent, respectively.3. Petitioner had filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1978 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894, for short) for enhancement of compensation. This application was referred to the learned District Judge, Ahmednagar and, in turn, it was made over to learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. It was, as note...

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Ashokkumar Hingu Singh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR947

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The respondent was employed as a bus driver with the BEST Undertaking, on 20th December, 1997. On 17th September, 2000, the respondent was on duty on Bus 5435 and was plying on Route 214. The bus was proceeding from Bandra (West) to Hill Road at 0115 hours, that is to say, an hour and fifteen minutes after mid night. The bus which was being driven by the respondent met with an accident near Holy Family Hospital on Ramdas Nayak Marg, during the course of which, there was a collision with a motor cycle bearing Registration No. MH-01-W-7224. Injuries were sustained by the motor cyclist and by the pillion rider. The motor cyclist succumbed to his injuries, at KEM Hospital where he was admitted. The motor cyclist who died in the accident was an employee of BEST Undertaking ...

Jayant Agro Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Considered the Larger Bench decision dated 9-12-2005. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench, we do not find a reason to accept the submissions made before us by the Id. Advocate for the appellants on merits even as regards our findings on by products. In judicial discipline, we have to follow the findings of the Larger Bench as regards exemption notification eligibility to the said entities impugned in this case. The demands on merits therefore would survive.2. However, we find that the issue of the use of the entities and the process of manufacture would entitle the appellants plea of limitation to be upheld. It is found that the charge for invoking the larger period of limitation is non declaration of correct manufacturing process along with raw material used and source of procurement etc of the impugned goods. No such demand is clearly identifiable and mentioned in the orders or in the list of documents relied upon, which could indicate a positive attempt on the part of th...

Proctor and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC657

1. In this case, modvat credit of Rs. 29,923/- has been disallowed to the appellants herein on the ground that this credit was taken on the strength of invoice in which they were not shown as consignee. An amount of Rs. 4500/- has been disallowed as credit on the ground that it was taken on the strength of invoice not bearing pre printed serial numbers. Hence this appeal.2. I have heard both sides and perused the invoice in question covering an amount of Rs. 29,923/- and find that the appellants (SIC) clearly shown as consignee thereon. I also note that the adjudicating authority had accepted that the appellants were entitled to this amount of credit but the Revenue had gone in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who appears to have over looked the fact that the appellants were shown as the consignee, and therefore disallowed the credit. I, therefore, hold that this amount of credit is admissible. The credit of Rs. 4500/- is also admissible as it has been held in series of decisions ...

Sunil Balaram Roy Vs. Divisional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR215; 2007(1)BomCR217; 2006(5)MhLj612

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard respective counsel. Grievance made by Advocate Motghare, is that matter was circulated in vacation behind the back of respondents and interim orders were obtained, therefore, I have also considered the merits of the controversy. During hearing it has become apparent that, considering of all controversies at this stage, is final hearing of the matter itself. Hence, with the consent of the parties and in view of the grievance made by Advocate Motghare, the matter is finally heard.2. The petitioner before this Court has been removed under Section 39(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 by resolution dated 18-12-2001, passed by the Standing Committee of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. It appears that he was elected as Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gauripur. Subsequently and in view of his removal under Section 39, the present respondent No. 3 moved Collector for disqualification under Section 14(1)(d) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act. That applica...

D.P. Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)ACC783; 2007(2)BomCR394; 2006(6)MhLj48

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioners are transport operators having their principle place of business at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. The petitioners are operating tourist vehicles and for that purpose they have obtained tourist permits from the State Transport authority from Karnataka under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Transport Authority, Karnataka, has issued authorization in favour of the petitioners to operate in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners claim that according to the conditions attached to the permit the petitioners have a right to carry goods in addition to the luggage of the passengers and thus plying of the vehicles in tune with the conditions of permit cannot be interfered with by the respondent authorities. The grievance of the petitioners is that since December, 1995 the respondent authorities from Maharashtra have started intercepting the buses, issuing check reports recording the reasons that the tourist vehicles are found...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Virema Laminates Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]148STC558(Bom)

1. Heard Mr. Sonpal in support of this application. Mr. Jaitely appears for the respondents.2. The application seeks a reference on certain points which are sought to be raised therein. The grievance is made with respect to the order dated May 5, 2005 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The question before the Tribunal was, as to whether various processes conducted by the respondent amounted to manufacture. The respondent was purchasing GI sheets, CRCA sheets and aluminium sheets from the local registered dealers and the sheets were undergoing a lamination process. Thereafter, they were sold in the market. It is the case of the sales tax department that it amounts to manufacture, whereas the case of the respondent is that it is not manufacture.3. Mr. Jaitely, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has relied upon a judgment of the apex court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Datt & Sons reported in [1992] 84 STC 497. That was a case where the manufacturer was removing electrolyte be...

Omprakash Mehra and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC421

2. The appellants are manufacturing polyester texturised yarn (PTY) out of partially oriented yarn (POY) and subsequently PTY is taken for twisting and dyeing. It is the appellants' case that they have paid duty on the PTY before taking the same for subsequent processes of twisting and dyeing and before the ultimate clearance of texturised yarn. Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, fairly states that initially the amount of duty paid was Rs. 98/- per kg. as per the rate prevailing prior to 4th July, 1995 after which the duty rate became ad valorem and hence differential duty has been paid subsequently, calculated at the rate of Rs. 106/- per kg. taking the value of PTY. It is the department's case that the appellants should have paid duty on the value of twisted and dyed PTY instead of paying duty on the value of PTY only.3. After hearing both sides, we find that under notification 35/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 as amended by notification 77/95-CE dated 3.4.1995...