Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Cannon Steels (P) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Mum.)942
1. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) relating to asst. yr. 1989-90. 1. (i) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the assessment holding it to be barred by limitation. (ii) The learned CIT(A) has erroneously adjudicated on the fate of the return which was not the subject-matter of appeal. The appeal pertains to the assessment completed under Section 147 on the return filed on 1st May, 1992. (iii) Having not invalidated the reopening proceedings, the assessment framed under Section 147 could not have been cancelled. (iv) Consequent to the return being held as non est, the proceedings emanating from that return do not subsist and the concept of limitation under Section 153(1) in respect of such non est return will not apply. (v) The learned CIT(A) ignored the documents on record particularly the AO's letter dt. 2nd March, 1992 and the assessee's reply dt. 16th March, 1992 filed along with the return stating clearly that the impug...
Mr. Joseph Sequeira, Member, V.P. Calangute and Ors. Vs. Mr. Menino D' ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR114
1. By consent heard forthwith.2. Rule.3. Heard all parties.4. The petition seeks to quash an ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 4-10-2007 passed by the Director of Panchayats. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Director of Panchayats has suspended a resolution dated 1-10-2007 passed by the Village Panchayat of Calangute in Panchayat Petition No. 17/2007 and the Respondents are restrained from executing the said resolution. The said petition No. 17/2007 was filed by the present Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the Director of Panchayats under Section 178(1) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. By the impugned Order, the Director acting under Section 178(2) of the said Act extended a copy of the order along with the proceedings of the case to the Secretary (Panchayats), Government of Goa, for passing appropriate order in the matter in accordance to law. The matter is still pending with the Secretary.5. The second relief which is sought in this petition is for a writ directing Respondent...
Vinayak S/O Narhari Kolshikwar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through It ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR716; 2008(1)BomCR126; 2008(2)MhLj179
ORDERR.M. Borde, J.1. Some essential facts, giving rise to this petition, can be summarised as below:Petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Chhatri', Scheduled Tribe. He secured certificate on 29.01.1993, issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate, Nanded, certifying therein that petitioner is member of 'Chhatri', Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner was employed as 'Wahini Madatnis' with Respondent No. 3 - Maharashtra State Electricity Board as against seat earmarked for reserved category candidate on 29.03.1997. The tribe certificate secured by petitioner came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee by the employer on 27.06.2002.2. It is contended by the petitioner that Respondent No. 3 issued notice directing him to produce caste validity certificate as expeditiously as possible, failing which, it was threatened that his services shall stand terminated. Petitioner, who was apprehending order of termination of his services, approached this Court seeking protection till Caste Scrutiny Committee dec...
Shri K.L. Kumar Vs. Shri V.P. Patil, Presiding Officer, First Labour C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR465; [2008(117)FLR803]; (2008)ILLJ1085Bom; 2008(2)MhLj598
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of Labour Court rejecting his demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Reference was dismissed on 19.5.1995.2. The petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2 as a Technician for more than a year. It is the petitioner's case that when he was appointed by Respondent No. 2, his signatures were obtained on blank letterheads of Respondent No. 2 and on blank vouchers and papers. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1987. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute and obtained a Reference for adjudication by the Labour Court. The dispute referred was one between the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner and was registered as Reference (IDA) No. 10 of 1988. The workman filed his statement of claim contending that his services had been terminated illegally and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. It was al...
BipIn Vimalchand JaIn Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (investigat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Bom)441
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is carrying business in the name and style of M/s. Bipinson Jewellers. On 29/12/2006 there was a survey action carried out at the business premises of the petitioner. During the course of the search cash amounting Rs. 1,28,34,090 was found at the business premises of the petitioner. The petitioner explained that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1.14 crores belonged to Bipin Vimalchand Jain, HUF carrying on business in the name of M/s. Vimalson Jewellers. Thereupon, search was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Vimalson Jewellers at 1.10 a.m. on 30/12/2006. On verification of the books of accounts maintained by M/s. Vimalson Jewellers, it was noticed that in the books there was cash balance of Rs. 1,22,41,740/- but the cash actually found was Rs. 8,38,980/-. The search party found a chit recording transfer of Rs. 1.14 cror...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Akshay Textiles Trading and Agencies (P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)316; [2008]304ITR401(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the rent paid by ultimate user will be treated as Annual Letting Value of the property as against rent received by the assessee?B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the annual letting value has to be determined with reference to the annual rent received by the assessee and not what has been received by its tenants from the ultimate users?C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 19,74,489 are not to be taken into account while computing the profits liable to be taxed under Section 115JA of the IT Act, 1961 and that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Veekaylal Investment Co. (P) Ltd. : [2001...
Rajubhai @ Rajendra Kamdar Vs. Sunita W/O Ashok Gandhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR134; 2008(3)BomCR336; 2008(1)MhLj473
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge order dated 26-9-2005 made by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur below exhibits 25 and 26 in Special Civil Suit No. 718 of 2004.Facts:2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants in respect of Flat No. C-2, 2nd floor, 'Nirmal Ganga Apartments', Ramdaspeth Nagpur on the allegation that there was oral agreement and receipts dated 24-9-2003 and 6-6-2003 executed in favour of respondent No. 1 pursuant to the said oral agreement for purchase of the flat. It is then stated in the suit that on 19-8-2004, however, the suit flat was sold to defendants No. 4 and 5 by defendant No. 1 to the suit. The defendants entered appearance in the suit and defendant No. 3 i.e. the petitioner filed applications Exh.25 and 26. By application Exh.25 it was...
M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Bom)130; [2008]297ITR119(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated December 27, 2006 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) relating to the assessment year 2003-04.3. The return of income for the assessment year in question was filed by the petitioner ('the assessee' for short) on April 11, 2003, declaring loss of Rs. 73,11,996. In the profit and loss account, the assessee had made a provision of Rs. 2,16,01,248 for deferred taxation. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the provision for deferred taxation amounting to Rs. 2,16,01,248 made in the profit and loss account should not be taken into account for determining the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.4. The assessee in its reply submitted that the provision for deferred taxation was made in ...
Arc. Hemant S. Dugad Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR405
1. The appellant is engaged in providing the services of architecture.They were registered with the Central Excise Department w.e.f.17-9-2003. However, during the period October, 1998 to September, 2002 and October, 2002 to June, 2003, the appellant did not pay service tax totally amounting to Rs. 51,425/-. Accordingly various show cause notices were issued to him. The appellant deposited the service tax before the issuance of show cause notice along with interest of Rs. 16,249/-. Asst. Commissioner while adjudicating the show cause notices appropriated the service tax and interest so paid by the appellant. He further imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- under the provisions of Section 76 and of Rs. 500/- in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late deposit of tax and non-filing of returns. The said order of the Asst. Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner who enhanced the penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed under Section 76 to the amount of tax so confirmed. The said order is imp...
Echjay Industries Private Limited (Formerly Echjay Industries Limited ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2728; [2008]83SCL89(Bom)
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Both these appeals seek to challenge the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Company Application No. 332 of 1988 in Company Petition No. 271 of 1985. Both these appeals may be disposed off by this common judgment.2. To state in brief, one Harilal Doshi had five sons Mansukhlal, Maganlal, Vinodchandra, Manharlal and Hasmukhlal. Echjay Industries Private Limited was commenced and controlled by this Doshi family. This company had its factory at Kanjurmarg, which may be referred to as 'Kanjur Division'. The said company also had another division known as Overseas Trade Division. They had also factory at Rajkot, which may be referred to as 'Rajkot division'. Several other business units were opened and controlled by the Doshi family. Harilal Doshi died on 22nd November, 1980 leaving behind his five sons. It appears that after the death of Harilal, there were disputes in the family essentially about control and management of the business. Ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »