Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shriram Builcons Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]306ITR328(Bom)

1. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri C.J. Thakar, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. All these four appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order dated August 24, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur ('the ITAT' for short), disposing of Income-tax Appeal Nos. 200/Nag/2002, 107/Nag/2003, 108/Nag/2003 and 201/Nag/2002.3. The respondent in the above appeals is the successor of M/s Shriram Builcons (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') who was the civil contractor and builder. On August 4, 1996, the assessee entered into a development agreement with Bharat Kheta and others for development of business complex on their land situated on Kingsway Civil Lines, Nagpur. As per the said agreement, the assessee was given development rights to construct multistoreyed commercial complex at their cost as per the sanctioned plan. The consideration agreed ...

Sujay Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Coming to merit, the second point of difference of opinion between the Members is as to whether investment and financing business of the assessee has commenced in the assessment year in question or not? 2. Assessee claimed that it is engaged in the business of investment and financing, whereas in the Profit & Loss Account, AO noticed, the only income shown by the assessee for the year under consideration was interest income amounting to Rs. 98,59,442/- as again previous year's interest income of Rs. 86,09,479/-. AO further noticed, assessee was receiving income by way of interest on the surplus funds. Out of total interest income received, Rs. 30,62,500/- was earned by the assessee on tax-free bonds, which has been claimed exempt under Section 10(15)(i) of the Act. The main object of the assessee company, according to AO, was not earning interest on loans and advances or investment. He further noted, assessee has not commenced its business after its incorporation on 29.05.1992....

The Ambajogai Peoples Co­operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shrimauli Builders ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR378; 2007(6)BomCR247; 2008(4)MhLj495

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appeal in these proceedings is directed against an order of a Learned Single Judge dated 15th February, 2007, dismissing Judges Order 494 of 2006 filed by the Appellant for the payment to it of a sum of Rs. 2.12 Crores deposited by the Second Respondent in an arbitration petition, along with the interest accrued thereon. The Appellant is a cooperative bank of which the First Respondent is a member. The Appellant had advanced monies to the First Respondent and upon a default committed by the First Respondent the Appellant instituted proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The proceedings culminated in the issuance of a recovery certificate dated 14th September, 2006 in the total sum of Rs. 4,09,79,406/. The Appellant was awarded further interest on the principal sum of Rs. 2,70,12,694/ at the rate of 14% per annum from 1st July, 2006 till payment or realization.2. The Third Respondent to the Appeal had instituted two a...

Durga Narendra Khandelwal Vs. Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR179; 2008(3)BomCR252; 2008(1)MhLj100

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 had moved for hearing this petition out of turn on the ground that pendency of the petition is prejudicing the claim of respondent No. 2, particularly in view that advertisement is being issued by the Oil Company for Warud, and urged that, in this background, it would be necessary to hear the writ petitions at the earliest.2. Writ Petition No. 3355 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 3600 of 1994 which have same issue are taken up for final hearing by consent. Heard learned Advocates for parties.For convenience we shall refer to the facts, parties and records as in Writ Petition No. 3355 of 1994.3. The facts in-brief, are that respondent No. 1 Oil Company issued advertisement on 7-11-1985 and then on 28-8-1993 inviting applications for allotment of dealership for Liquid Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) retail outlet of respondent No. 1 Company. Admittedly petitioner has applied with reference to advertisement dated 28-8-1993.4. While process of de...

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Mr. Gajendra Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR532; 2007(6)BomCR700; (2007)109BOMLR2072; 2008BusLR161(Bom); LC2007(3)299; 2008(36)PTC53(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is one Ms.Karuna Raju Samtani and Defendant No. 3 is Star (India) Limited.2. The suit is filed for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in the literary work and cinematograph film embodying the television game show 'Titan Antakshari' being broadcast on its television channel 'Zee' since September, 1993 inter- alia by Defendant No. 3 broadcasting the television game show 'Antakshari - The Great Challenge'. The Plaintiff has also sought an order restraining the Defendants from making and broadcasting the television game show 'Antakshari - The Great Challenge' and/or using the content and/or presentation and/or the word 'Antakshari' in relation to any television game show so as to pass off such show as being a television game show associated with and/or authorized by and/or having any connection with the Plaintiff's game show 'Titan Antakshari'. Finally the Plaintiff has sought damages and an order ...

Rupee Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Shri Shailesh V. Vaidya,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR878; 2007(6)BomCR265; (2007)109BOMLR2229; (2008)ILLJ351Bom; 2008(2)MhLj434

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the orders passed by the Labour Court on 10.7.1997 and by the Industrial Court in the Appeal on 15.1.1998. The Labour Court had partly allowed the application filed by the respondent workman Under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court had rejected the respondent's prayer for reinstatement but had granted him backwages for the period from 16.5.1995 to 24.4.1996. The Industrial Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent i.e. Appeal (BIR) No. 8 of 1997, partly and has directed the petitioner bank to reinstate the respondent in his original post with continuity of service and half the backwages. When the petition was admitted, the order directing reinstatement was stayed. However, the petitioner was directed to pay the backwages awarded by the Industrial Court.2. The petitioner is a registered bank under the Banking Regulations Act and also under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act....

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2273; (2007)212CTR(Bom)384; [2008]298ITR149(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Tax Appeal No. 256 of 2007 is in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 and Tax Appeal No. 259 of 2007 is in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95.2. The substantial question of law as formulated in both the Appeals is as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow the claim in respect of delayed payment of PF, if it has been paid upto the date of filing of Return of Income ignoring the fact that said amendment to the provisions of Section 43B of the I.T. Act was made with effect from 1st April, 2004 i.e. from Assessment Year 2004-05 and prior to that period, such contribution is to be allowed only when the same is paid before the due date of respective month.3. In both the Appeals the Assessment Officer disallowed the payment towards P.F. as being beyond the due date prescribed under the P.F. Act. The Assessee preferred an Appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the judgment of the D...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Namdeo Pandurang Sutar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR714; 2007(6)BomCR468; 2008(2)MhLj509

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The appellant-State of Maharashtra is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court dated 3rd June, 1985 in LAR No. 100/84.3. Brief facts are that a vast extent of land located at Village Takli, Tal. Karmala, Dist. Solapur was acquired for Ujani project. The Reference Court vide its judgment and order awarded additional compensation of Rs. 34,293.75 and also granted additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% on the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 plus 30% solatium on the additional amount and 15% solatium on the amount awarded by the SLAO. It is an admitted position that in respect of other similarly situated acquisitions, the State of Maharashtra has preferred Appeal No. 477/ 87 and these appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : V.S. Kotwal and N.P. Chapalgaonkar, JJ.) by judgment and order dated 26th Februar...

Leonid Beyzer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR498; 2008(1)BomCR110; 2008(1)MhLj289

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard all parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.The petition impugns an order dated 14-9-2007 purporting to be passed in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and ordering that the petition Leonid Beyzer, who is a Russian National, holder of Russian Passport valid till 2-10-2008, will not remain in India after expiry of a period of 15 days from the date of service of the impugned order upon him.2. The record indicates that the passport of the petitioner is valid upto 2-10-2008 and that he has entered India on a business visa, permitting triple entries which is valid till 6-6-2008. The record further indicates that though the impugned order was passed on 14-9-2007, after passing of the order, on 22-9-2007 a letter has been directed by the Pernem Police calling upon him for an inquiry on 24-9-2007. This inquiry, however, is not being held by the authorities from the Home Department. Fro...

Haji N. Abdulla Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)471; 2009(235)ELT609(Bom); [2008]299ITR119(Bom); 2008(2)MhLj614

F.I. Rebello, J.1 Rule. Heard forthwith.The petitioner an individual has filed his returns of income for the 'asst. yrs. 1995-96 to 2000-01 with the ITO, Ward 2, Udupi. The petitioner also filed regular returns of income for the asst. yrs. 2001-02 and 2002-03 with the Asstt. CIT (Central) Circle, Mangalore. The petitioner also filed block return for asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 2001-02 for the block period 1st April, 1990 to 27th Feb., 2001 disclosing undisclosed income of Rs. 22,22,351. On 27th Feb., 2001 search operation under Section 132 of the IT Act had been carried out on the business and residential premises of the petitioner. On 27th Feb., 2003 the block assessment order was passed determining the undisclosed income at Rs. 82,68,217. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) against the block assessment order which is pending.2. The petitioner on 29th Oct., 2003 filed an application under Section 245C(1) before the Settlement Commission offering Rs. 10 lakhs as addition...