Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

S.K. Luthra Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI at Mumbai dated 30-3-2006 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case had owned premises in a building "Readymoney Terrace" at Worli. The said property was sold by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal to two parties, viz., Rakshat Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Rangoon Investment Ltd. and M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. The sale resulted in capital gains. The assessee claimed before the assessing officer that he was not exigible to capital gain tax as the consideration has been used for purchasing a flat and, therefore, he is entitled for the exemption under Section. 54F. On enquiries the assessing officer found that the assessee had purchased the said flat, in Sheetal Building at Vile Par...

Mohananlal M. Shah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)105ITD669(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A), Central-Ill, Mumbai dated 23-10-2002 relating to assessment year 1999-2000 against the order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer for disallowing interest of Rs. 2,81,889 while assessing the total income by wrongly applying the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. (b) (i) Your appellant submits that the said interest was paid on borrowings made for investments in shares and debentures. (ii) Your appellant further submits that the interest represented an expenditure incurred for the purposes of earning dividend and earning profits on sale of shares. (c) Your appellant pleads that the said interest be allowed as a deduction. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) once again erred in confirming the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, which was levied by the learned Assessing Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing and w...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Maharashtra State Co-op. Market

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals filed by the revenue are against the consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XIII, Mumbai, dated 13-1-2003 relating to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 against the D order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the cross-objections have been filed by the assessee relating to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Both the appeal by the revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee relating to the same issue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The revenue has raised same grounds of appeal for both the years under consideration which are as under : 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and in facts in directing the assessing officer to allow deductionunder Section 80P(2)(d) of the IT. Act of Rs. 1,26,00,000 (for assessmentyear 1997-98) Rs. 1,44,76,616 (for assessment year 1998-99) being grossdividend and inter...

Veena Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Both the appeals are by the assessee are against the consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, Mumbai, dated 31 -3-2005 relating to assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 against the order under Section 16(3) read with Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The issue in both the appeals being same, the two appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The appeal was filed late by one day and we condone the delay in filing in the said appeal.2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal in both the assessment years: 1. The learned CWT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the immovable property owned by the appellant and partly used for the purpose of business is out of the purview of the definition 'asset' under Section 2(ea)(1)(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The appellant submitted that since the property was partly used by the appellant and partly let out commercial premi...

Berg Trading Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) arising from the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1998-99.2. The only ground urged in the appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs. 4,34,892. AR explained the facts relating to the issue which are as follows : assessing officer had revised the valuation of closing stock made by the assessee by taking into account the element of exchange rate fluctuation pertaining to items which are in closing stock. Assessing Officer had primarily relying on the judgment of honourable Apex court in the case of CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 441, held that the foreign exchange fluctuation has arisen in assessee's case directly in respect of closing stock and, therefore, that the exchange loss relatable to the closing stock has to be considered as only part of closing stock and that th...

Shri Sumersing Ganpatsingh Pardeshi Vs. Karmala Taluka Education Socie ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR350; 2006(6)MhLj508

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition assails the Judgment and Order dated 18/9/1991 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune thereby dismissing Appeal No.35 of 1989 filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of the present respondent no.2 to the post of Head Master of Mahatma Gandhi High School, Karmala with effect from 22/2/1989. Hence this petition is treated as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Admittedly, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has retired on 31/7/2000 and the respondent no.2 on 31/7/1997. The post of Head Master, as at present, is occupied by a new incumbent appointed as per the Rules and though the petitioner was in service as on 31/7/1997, his claim for promotion to the post of Head Master was not considered till he retired. 3. In his appeal before the School Tribunal, it was the case of the petitioner that in the seniority list of all the teachers in the M.G. High School, his name was at Sr.No.11, whereas the name of...

Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union Vs. the G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR26; 2006(5)BomCR490; (2007)ILLJ965Bom

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this Bench because the Division Bench of this Court has referred following question for consideration by the Larger Bench:In view of the statutory definition of the expression 'unprotected worker' in Section 2(11) of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, is the interpretation placed by the Division Bench in Century Textile & Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2000 2 CLR 279 on the aforesaid expression that it is only casually engaged workers who come within the purview of the Act, correct and proper?2. The relevant developments leading to the Division Bench referring the aforesaid question are that the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity), which came into force on 13-6-1969. T...

Ram Haribhau Gunjal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR78; 2006(6)MhLj734

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioners by the present Petition are seeking direction to the Respondents to delete the land bearing Survey No. 148/1 admeasuring 81 Ares out of acquisition proceedings which were initiated for the benefit of Pimpalgaon Joga Dam, under the provisions of Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Affected Persons in Village Belha, Taluka Junnar, District Pune, and in that regard to quash the Notice dated 17.8.2000 issued in that respect and further direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to proceed against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in relation to the surplus area with the said Respondents in accordance with the provisions of law, with the exclusion of the land bearing Survey No. 148/1 admeasuring 81 Ares. 3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the land bearing Survey No. 148/1 admeasuring 81 Ares situate at Village Belha, Taluka Junnar, Dist : Pune belonged to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Under an Agreement dated 27.3.1974 executed by the said Respo...

The Union of India (Uoi) Through the Chief Engineer and the Commander ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR346; 2006(6)MhLj703

1. Rule in both the Petitioners. Heard forthwith. As the issue involved in these petitioners are common, they are being disposed off by a common order. 2. The Petitioners herein had invited applications for the post of Mazdoor which included (General 007 (including 02 ex-servicemen), 04 OBCs (including 1 Ex-serviceman), 2 SC, and 1 ST and 12 Chowkidars. The recruitment notice was issued on 29-8-2000. The Respondents herein after following the prescribed s election process, completed the same on 18-12-2000. Before the offer of appointment could be issued, the Petitioners were informed by the Ministry of Defence that there was a ban on selection, imposed by the Department of Personnel on 5-8-1999. As such, no actual orders of appointments were issued to the Respondents. After the ban was lifted, another recruitment notice was issued on 11-7-2003, inviting application for post of 10 Mazdoors. Aggrieved by this notice, the Respondents filed Original Application before the Central Administr...

Kay Kay Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cloth Markets and Shops Board and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR5; 2006(6)BomCR739; [2007(112)FLR273]; (2007)ILLJ865Bom; 2006(6)MhLj377

J.N. Patel and Roshan Dalvi, JJ.1. The Division Bench of this Court while considering a group of petitions filed by the petitioner employers relating to the application of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other ., (Writ Petition No. 7671 of 2005) as a lead petition. The Bench was of the view that the interpretation placed in the judgment of this Court in Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., v. State of Maharashtra : (2000)IILLJ815Bom relating to Section 2 definitions defining the words 'unprotected workers' (section 2(11) and 'worker' (section 2(12) of the Mathadi Act, 1969 is in conflict with the statutory provisions enacted by the legislature and that the correctness of the decision would, therefore, merit examination by the Larger Bench. The two questions of law for determination of the controversy were formulated after considering the various provisions of the Mathadi Act, 1969 and the Schemes enacted thereunder like the Cloths Markets and Shops Unprotected Workers (Regulation o...