Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. R. Lines Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)298ITR150(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are directed against the order dt. 19th April, 2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The cross-objections filed by the assessee also call into question the very legal validity of reassessment proceedings and, as learned representatives fairly agree, in case we are to uphold these cross-objections all other grievances of the parties, which essentially deal with merits of the stand taken in the course of reassessment proceedings will be rendered academic. We, therefore, propose to deal with this aspect of the matter first.3. Let us take a look at the material facts of the case which have lead to this litigation before us. The assessee is a company incorporated in Mauritius, it claims to have and has been assessed in the status of non-resident. The business of the assessee is shipping operations. The ori...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Cables P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Bom)580; [2006]286ITR596(Bom)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal is as to whether the retention money could be considered to be the income of the assessee in the year in which the amount was retained. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to a judgment of the Tribunal in Associated Cables P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1994] 206 ITR 48. Mr. Sathe appearing for the respondent has, however, drawn our attention to two judgments, viz., of the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court. The Calcutta High Court judgment is reported in CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) P. Ltd. : [1989]179ITR8(Cal) . A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in that matter has held that the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an i...

Poorna Prajna Education and anr. Vs. Tripta Harishchandra Katkar and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR63

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The first petitioner is a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1950 and conducts a school known as the Poorna Prajna High School. The school is conducted in the Marathi Medium and is a Secondary School. The first petitioner is stated to have been established and administered by a linguistic minority consisting of Kannad speaking persons. The first respondent was appointed as a Headmistress on 3rd July 1995 on probation. The letter of appointment stipulated that the first respondent would be governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981.2. Rule 3 of the Rules prescribes qualifications for appointment of a Head of a School. Rule 3(1)(b) which applies in the present case is o the following effect:3. Qualifications and appointment of Head.-(1) A person to be appointed as the Head -(b) of a secondary school including night school or a Junior College of Education shall be a graduate possessi...

Yamunabai Dattoba Taware Vs. Nana Bhikoba Nagade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR31

Mhase S.B., J.1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of both side Counsel.2. This writ petition is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 26th November 2004 passed by the 9th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 698 of 2003 wherein the Court has set aside the decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in favour of the present petitioner in Civil Suit No. 91 of 1998. Present petitioner is the original plaintiff from Civil Suit No. 91 of 1998 filed before the Small Causes Court, Pune. The respondent is the original defendant from the said suit. The petitioner had filed the said suit for getting possession of the suit premises consisting of one room admeasuring 10 x 12 feet in C.T.S. No. 3724, Taware Colony, Opposite Rasik Medicals, Aranyeshwar, Pune-9, which is located within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. Petitioner is landlord of the said premises while respondent is an admitted tenant of the said premises. The premises are g...

Kautik Ragho MaraThe Vs. Javerchand Surtingaji Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj255

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Sangit, instructed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.J. Dixit, who appears for the appellant. None for the respondent. This second appeal is filed by the original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 51 of 1975. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status in Special Civil Suit No. 51 of 1975, as plaintiff and defendant.2. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 51 of 1975 for recovery of the goods sold, against the defendant. An amount of Rs. 16,974.31 Ps. was sought to be recovered, along with interest. Agreement Exhibit-36 is referred in the suit. The defendant, after entering appearance, filed written statement in the suit and resisted the claim. The trial Court framed as many as fifteen issues. Out of these fifteen issues, issue No. 11 is in respect of bar of limitation, plea set up by the defendant, in the written statement. The trial Court referred the oral evidence of plaintiff. Defendant, admittedly, did not enter the witness b...

Bhaskar Mahadev Surve Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ998Bom

1. Heard Mr. R.J. Bhat, counsel for the petitioner.2. Two facts were admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. One, that there is no appointment letter appointing the petitioner as deliveryman by respondent no. 4 namely, M/s. Varun Shipping Company Limited. The other that petitioner had been running courier services in the name of Bhaskar Courier Services. However, his explanation is that at the instance and as per the modus operandi, of respondent No. 4, Varun Shipping Company Limited, the petitioner has been shown running Bhaskar Courier Services.3. We are not impressed by the explanation of the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that there is no appointment letter appointing petitioner as deliveryman. The petitioner has also been running courier services in the name of Bhaskar Courier Services, though according to the petitioner, it is only shown on paper. If the appropriate Government rejected the application made by the petitioner for making reference under Section 10 of the ...

Union Bank of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR382

Kanade V.M., J.1. Petitioner is a Bank constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970. Petitioner had lent advance money to one Poddar Mills (Process House), which was leased by M/s. Poddar Mills Ltd. to Shree Laxmi Traders Limited. The said Poddar Processors was taken over by respondent No. 3 in the year 1983 under the Textile Undertakings (Takeover of Management) Act, 1983 and respondent No. 3 was appointed as additional custodian for the purpose of carrying on the said Undertaking.2. On 14th October, 1986 the petitioner instituted a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,46,97,156.95 alongwith interest against Shree Laxmi Traders Limited and the guarantors viz. M/s Poddar Mills Ltd. Respondent No. 3 was also added as defendant to the suit. The case of the petitioner in the suit was that the respondent No. 1 had guaranteed to repay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to be advanced by the petitioner to NTC by way of Cash Credit Facility. Accordingly, monies were advan...

Shri Shilpa Industries and Shri Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC98

2. The appellants are being aggrieved by the order in original No.S/10-16/96 IV dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs New Customs House, Sheva, Dist. Raigad came up in appeal before this Tribunal.3. The appellant is power attorney holder of M/s. Shree Shilpa Industries and has been penalized to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs (two lakhs) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Shree Shilpa Industries have imported subject consignments on behalf of M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd. The DRI Officers, Mumbai raided the office premises of M/s. Annapurna Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and also residential premises of Director and Job Worker on 13.10.1995 and recovered incriminating documents. It is revealed from the said documents that the invoices issued by M/s. Efficient Task and M/s. Luk's Brothers Metal Button Factory that the imported goods were undervalued. During the course of investigation, the Customs Officers have recorded the statements of Shri Sunil P. Mehta, Smt. Shilp...

Poly Paper Converters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Zone-II, Mumbai.3 The appellants M/s. Poly Paper Converters have availed Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. There was a fire accident in the premises of the appellants on 06.01.2002 wherein the raw-material as well as finished goods were destroyed due to fire.The appellants, vide letter dated 14.10.2002 applied to the Commissioner, Central Excise, for remission of duty on finished products and duty on raw-material. The said application is rejected.Thereupon a Show-Cause-Notices were issued demanding reversal of credit taken on the inputs as well as finished goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai also upheld the Order-in-Original. The same is challenged by the appellants before the tribunal on the following grounds.4. The Commissioner did not provide an op...

Saurashtra Vanza Gnyati Yuvak Mandal and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR101; 2006(6)BomCR44; 2007CriLJ539

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents and pleadings on record. 2. This Petition is to initiate action against Respondents 2, 3 and 4 for having committed wilful breach of the order passed by this Court dated 14th July 2005. Briefly stated, the Corporation issued notice under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in respect of the disputed structure. That action was challenged by the Petitioners by way of Suit being Suit No. 2993 of 2001 before the City Civil Court. The said Suit came to be dismissed on 12th July 2005. The Petitioners prayed for stay to enable the Petitioners to take up the matter in Appeal. However, that prayer was rejected by the Trial Court. The Petitioners accordingly rushed to this Court and filed First Appeal being First Appeal (Stamp) No. 16139 of 2005 on 13th July 2005. However, as there was no interim protection in respect of the suit structure, the Officials of the Corporation proceeded to demolish th...