Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Crest Communication Ltd. Vs. Additional Director of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD558(Mum.)

1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the Order of the CIT(A) on common grounds which are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding levy of penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the contentions of the appellant that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is beyond the scope of Section 272A(2)(c) of the Act read with Section 206 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that there was a reasonable cause for the failure alleged in terms of Section 272A(2)(c) of the Act.Since these appeals were heard together, we prefer to adjudicate them by this consolidated order.2. These appeals emanate from the Order passed under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act (Act) passed by the Additional Director of Income-tax (International Taxation). The brief facts borne out from the record are that the as...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Abg Heavy Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Major issue involved in both the appeals filed by the Department is common. We therefore find it convenient to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1. directing the Assessing Officer to deduct a sum of Rs. 13,15,01,864/- being deduction Under Section 80IA by holding that the assessee has carried on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility while calculating the Book Profits Under Section 115JAoftheAct. 2. ignoring the statement recorded Under Section 132(4) of Shri Saket Agarwal, Managing Director, wherein he admitted that no operation of infrastructure facility was carried on by the assessee for the purpose of deduction Under Section 80-IA of the Act. 3. holding that the business of leasing of assets of the assessee tantamount to carrying on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility and thereby eligible ...

Maharashtra State Financial Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Except ITA No. 1140/Bom./1992, all appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) for different assessment years on common grounds. Since, all these were heard together, these are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. During the course of hearing, the assessee has filed the brief note of its submissions along with the consolidated chart prepared in respect of grounds raised in these appeals with a request that instead of dealing the grounds in all appeals independently, these appeals can be disposed of by adjudicating the common issues raised in these appeals. We, however, also of the view that these appeals can be disposed of by the single consolidated order by adjudicating the grounds issue-wise.3. The first ground raised in Appeal No. 2060/Bom/1992 is with regard to the disallowance of Director's Remuneration under Section 40C of the Income Tax Act and this ground is raised only in I.T.A. No.2060/Bom/1992 and in this regard,...

Dy. Cit Vs. Abg Heavy Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)303ITR328(Mum.)

1. Major issue involved in both the appeals filed by the department is common. We, therefore, find it convenient to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in: 1. directing the assessing officer to deduct a sum of Rs. 13,15,01,864 being deduction under Section 80-IA by holding that the assessee has carried on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility while calculating the Book Profits under Section 115JA of the Act. 2. ignoring the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of Shri Saket Agarwal, Managing Director, wherein he admitted that no operation of infrastructure facility was carried on,by the assessee for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 3. holding that the business of leasing of assets of the assessee tantamount to carrying on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facili...

Dr. Amir FidahusaIn and ors. Vs. MohammedhussaIn Abdullabhai Fidaali a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR509; 2006(6)MhLj433

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Heard Mr.S.T.Tilokchandani, the counsel for the Appellants. 2. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 12th of June, 2006, whereby the learned single Judge issued notice to the present Appellants (Defendant Nos.10 to 15) under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show cause why the consent decree passed on 3rd of December, 1991 be not executed against them. 3. In our considered view, the impugned order is not a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, the Appeal against the said order is not maintainable. The impugned order is neither interlocutory nor intermediary judgment as categorised by the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania : [1982]1SCR187 . It does not possess the characteristics and trapping of finality inasmuch as it decides nothing and is only initiatory, asking the present Appellants to show cause why the consent decree be not executed against them. 4. The learned Counsel for ...

Laxman Alias Bala Govekar Vs. Janardhan S. Kalangutkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ136

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the Order dated 27-4-2006 of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, by which, the learned Sessions Judge, set aside the Order dated 5-12-2003 of the learned Executive Magistrate, Margao, dropping the proceedings initiated by him under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ('Code' for short).2. The petitioner herein was respondent No. 1 before the learned Executive Magistrate. The respondents Nos. 1 and 12, the former being the nephew of the later, were the applicants (said respondents, for short), at whose instance the said proceedings were initiated by the Executive Magistrate.3. The dispute between the petitioner and the said respondents is as regards a right of way. The petitioner and the contesting respondent No. 1 having failed to arrive at a compromise, this revision petition has been heard on merits. At the time of hearing, a plan of the locality has been produced and regarding which, there is no dispu...

thereza Cordo Vs. Venkatesh Lotlikar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR759

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. The petitioner challenges the Orders passed by the Mamlatdar of Bardez, the Additional Collector and the Administrative Tribunal in the proceedings arising under the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the said Act).2. One Venkatesh Vishwanath Lotlikar filed an application before and the Mamlatdar of Bardez at Mapusa on 2 May, 1984 requesting for registering himself as mundkar in respect of a house bearing Village Panchayat House No. 161 situated in the property bearing Survey No. 49 sub-divisions 4 and 5 situated at Nerul, Bardez, Goa and claiming that Agostino Henry Cordo alias Sunny Cordo of Alto Guirim to be the landlord and claiming to be occupying the said house over a period of 35 years. On receipt of the application, Mamlatdar recorded verification of his claim on 4 May, 1984 in terms of the provisions of law comprised under the said Act and notice was issued to the said Agostino. On 31 May, 1984 on receipt of the said...

Shantaram Krishna Karkhandis and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ149

ORDERV.M. Kanade, J.1. The applicants are original accused Nos. 1 and 3. They are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Thane who by his order dated 21-2-1994 convicted both the applicants for commission of the offence under Section 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3.000/- and, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Order, they preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge at Thane vide Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1994. However, Sessions Court, Thane by its judgment and order dated 8-5-1996 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The applicants are challenging the aforesaid Orders; one passed by the trial Court and the other passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane.2. The prosecution case is that the prosecutrix Barkibai had wor...

Motilal S. Rathod and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ837

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. The appellants, who are husband and mother-in-law of the deceased Sau Kavlta, impugn the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1995. Both of them have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304-II r.w. Section 34 of the I.P. Code. Appellant No. 1-Motilal was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs. - 500/- I.O., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months; whereas, the appellant No. 2-Gyanubai was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, I.D. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months.2. The appellants are inhabitants of a small hamlet known as Charu Tanda (Murti) in Soyegaon taluka. Somewhere in summon season of 1994 the appellant No. 1-Motilal was married to deceased Sau. Kavita. It was Gandharva marriage since the deceased Sau. Kavita was ...

Jayant S/O Vasantrao Dhole Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR265; 2007(1)MhLj850

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 1-6-1992 passed by the Collector, Amravati, setting aside the auction dated 9-3-1992 where he was the highest bidder and its confirmation in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. This Court has while issuing Rule in the matter, granted interim relief and prohibited the owner i.e. respondent No. 5 from creating any third party interest in the matter.2. The property admeasuring 14,520 sq. ft. from Land Survey No. 2/2, total area 2 H, 27 R of Mouza Rasulpur was proceeded against by respondent No. 4 -Naib Tahsildar, Morshi, for recovery of arrears of Rs. 81,618/- of State Government towards non-agricultural assessment. The auction sale was conducted on 9-3-1992 and bid of the petitioner at Rs. 3,10,000/- was found to be higher. It was accepted by respondent No. 4 - Naib Tahsildar and the petitioner, as required, immediately deposited l/3rd amount of Rs. 1,04,000/- in cash. The remaining am...