Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Swaran Singh Sokhey Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1996-97.2. In the first ground, the assessee is challenging the reopening of assessment under Section 147. In second ground the assessee is challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs. 47 lakhs.3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was an architect by profession. For assessment year 1996-97 he filed return declaring an income of Rs. 19,81,747 on 31-10-1996. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 23-6-1998 calling for a return. The assessing officer mentioned the reasons for reopening the assessment, in para 2 of his order that "the assessee claimed brokerage expenses of Rs. 47,00,000 against brokerage income received at Rs. 70,50,000. The claim of the assessee was excessive in nature and was not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the i...

Srikant G. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD577(Mum.)

1. These seven appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the CIT (A)-XI, Mumbai and involving common issues are consolidated and decided by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. It may be mentioned that all these appeals were originally disposed off by ITAT, B-Bench, Mumbai by the common order dated 30.12.04.Subsequently, the assessee filed an MA, which has been considered and disposed off by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.05 in MA No.280/M/05 for all these years. As per this order, the original order of the Tribunal dated 30.12.04, referred to above, has been recalled for being decided afresh. Hence, the appeals were fixed for hearing and heard by us afresh.3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are similar for all the assessment years and it would suffice to reproduce these grounds from ITA No 4247/M/03 for the assessment year 2001-02 as under: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in not deleting the sum of Rs. 12...

Annappa Jivappa Kamatgi Vs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha Thr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR400

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugns the judgment and order of the University and College Tribunal passed on 4/4/1990 thereby dismissing Appeal No. 3 of 1990 filed by the petitioner under Section 42B of the Shivaji University Act, 1974. In the said order the petitioner had challenged the transfer order dated 3/12/1988 issued by the Respondent No. 1 -Employer transferring him from the post of Lecturer in Vivekanand Senior College, Kolhapur to Purandar Junior College at Saswad as a Junior Lecturer. As per the petitioner this transfer from the post of Lecturer in the Senior College to the post of Lecturer in the Junior College amounted to reduction in post and, therefore, he sought the remedy by filing an appeal under Section 42B of the Shivaji University Act, 1974. 2. The petitioner passed his B.Sc. examination in First Class from the Shivaji University in 1971 and he obtained his M.Sc. Degree in 1973 from the said University with B+ grade. Subsequently he obtained his B.Ed. Degre...

B.S. Rath Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the General Manager of Wes ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR26

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the following prayers are made which are reproduced as under(a) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and proceedings in the OA 95/99 and RP 18/03 and quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt. 31.1.2003 and compulsory retirement order dt. 28.5.2003 and praying for reinstatement on the post as Sr. Motorman with full back wages, as if periods spent on duty, (b) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to club this petition with Writ Petition 4608/02 pending in this Hon'ble High Court, (c) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to expedite the petition, (d) For any other relief Hon'ble Court may deemed fit to grant,(e) The cost of this petition may please be granted, (f) Rules to be issued and records and proceedings be called for.2. Brief facts wh...

Meditronics Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Salima A. Rais (Dr.)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR72

Lodha R.M., J.1. The original defendants are in appeal against the judgement dated 12-7-2006 passed by the learned trial Judge in decreeing the plaintiffs suit in the sum of Rs. 16,43,200/- together with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realisation and costs of the suit for want of written statement while exercising the powers under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') is a Medical Practitioner and runs a hospital in the name and style of 'Rais Hospital'. It is averred in the plaint that acting on the advertisements and representations and technical brochures issued by the defendants, the plaintiff placed an order for supply, installation and commissioning of Ultrasound Scanner Equipment in the year 1988 in the hospital. The equipment was found defective. The plaintiff complained to the defendants to rectify the defects in the equipment, but nothing was don...

Vijaylaxmi Shrinivas Shegur and ors. Vs. Vikas Co-op. Bank Ltd. and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR86

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Since, common question of facts and law arise in all these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule in all the petitions. By consent, Rule made returnable forth, in all the petitions.3. In all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Revisional Authority under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dismissing the Revision Application, as well as the Review Application. As far as dismissal of Review Application is concerned, the question of interference does not arise as the concerned Authority had no jurisdiction to Review its Orders under the Act under which the said Authority is constituted and therefore no fault can be found with the orders dismissing Review Applications.4. As far as the orders which have been passed by the Revisional Authority, the impugned orders apparently disclose that the Revision Applications have been allowed against the order passed by the District Forum, sol...

Aloysius Manuel D'souza and Ors. Vs. Mary Kamala William Manuel D'souz ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR56

Lodha R.M., J.1. On March 3, 2005, the learned Testamentary Judge of this Court ordered issuance of heirship certificate of the deceased William Manual D'souza in favour of Mary Kamala William D'Souza (respondent No. 1). Aggrieved thereby, the present appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Aloysius Manuel D'Souza - appellant No. 1 is the brother of late William Manual D'Souza (hereinafter referred to as the 'said deceased'). Denzil Alfred D'Souza - appellant No. 2 is the son of one Ancey D'Souza (sister of the said deceased). Julious Machado -appellant No. 3 is the husband of one Ethel D'Souza (sister of the deceased) and Clifford George D'Souza - appellant No. 4 is the son of Hilda D'Souza (sister of the deceased).3. The appellants have prayed for grant of leave to file the appeal and also for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.4. Mary Kamala claims to be the widow of the said deceased. She applied for issuance of legal heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 182...

Usv Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR316; 2009(234)ELT587(Bom); 2006(6)MhLj461

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. A short point, which arises for consideration in the matter is whether Dexovon Capsules containing 70 mg. of Dextropropoxyphene-HCL, for short DXC, per dosage unit, which is less than the prescribed limit of 135 mg. per dosage unit to classify the same as narcotic or narcotic drugs would be liable to the State Excise Duty under the provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955.2. The few facts, relevant for the decision in the matter, are that, the petitioners-company is the manufacture of medicaments pursuant to the licence granted under the relevant statute and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners-company manufactures Dexovon capsules which, according to the petitioners, do not contain the narcotic drug as prescribed under the said Act. The said capsules contain a substance known as Dextropropoxyphene- HCL of 70 mg. per dosage unit i.e. per capsule, which is according to the petitioners, much less than the prescribed limit...

Vijaylaxmi Shrinivas Shegur and anr. Vs. Vikas Co-op. Bank Ltd. and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj539

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since, common question of facts and law arise in all these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Rule in all the petitions. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith, in all the petitions.3. In all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Revisional Authority under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dismissing the Revision Application, as well as the Review Application. As far as dismissal of Review Application is concerned, the question of interference does not arise as the concerned Authority had no jurisdiction to Review its Orders under the Act under which the said Authority is constituted and therefore no fault can be found with the orders dismissing Review Applications.4. As far as the orders which have been passed by the Revisional Authority, the impugned orders apparently disclose that the Revision Applications have been allowed against the order passed by the District Forum,...

Anusandhan Investments Ltd. Vs. M.R. Singh, Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Bom)350; [2006]287ITR482(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated December 5, 1996, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). By the said notice, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of investments.3. For the assessment year 1992-93 the petitioner had filed its return of income and on March 19, 1993, the Assessing Officer had issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act.4. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment year 1992-93 read thus:The return filed for the assessment year 1992-93 was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on March 19, 1993. As mentioned in the order for the assessment year 1993-94 passed under Section 143(3) dated January 31, 1996, it has been held that the actual transfer of shares has taken place in the period relevant for the assessment year 1992-93 and hence capital gains leviable in the ...