Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

Aurangabad Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC156

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.VGN(30)381/TF/ 1998/8678 dated 18.10.2000.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that there was a fire accident in the factory of the appellant on 16.3.1997 and on 17.5.1997. In the fire accident, the raw materials and finished goods were destroyed. The appellant filed remission application for finished goods, which were destroyed in the factory due to fire accident, through letter dated 15.6.1998. A show cause notice dated 22.7.1999 was issued to the appellant for rejection of the remission claim on the ground that the intimation of the fire was given by the appellant to the authorities belatedly. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad vide his order dated 18.10.2000 rejected the remission application filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the intimation of fire accident that took place on 16.3.1997 was given vide le...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the profit earned from exports as computed in Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 80HHC(3) is eligible for reduction under Clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 115JB of the IT Act and thereby directing the assessing officer to allow reduction of Rs. 6,64,25,939 as profit from export while computing the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The facts in brief on the impugned issue are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical products. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer recomputed the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act at Rs. 1,33,66,209 as against Rs. 81,021 disclosed by the assessee. The assessing officer has observed in the assessment order that Section 80HHC(1) allows deduction to the extent of profits, referred to in Sub-sectio...

Sheela Securities (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Mum.)112

1. Both these appeals are assessee's appeals directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXIX, Mumbai dt. 23rd Dec., 2004 for asst. yr.2001-02 and against the order of CIT dt. 28th March, 2006 under Section 263 for the same assessment year. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing loss of Rs. 10,86,472 by treating the same as speculation loss. (2) The learned CIT(A) erred in applying Explanation to Section 73 for disallowing the loss incurred by the appellant.4. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a sub-broker of M/s Kantilal Mangaldas See (P) Ltd., one of the main brokers of the Bombay Stock Exchange. During this year, the assessee has earned net brokerage of Rs. 17,68,213. The assessee had also some share trading in its own account in which, it has incurred loss of Rs. 10,86,472 on delivery based share trading and Rs. 32,42...

Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)788

1. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in not granting deduction of bank interest of Rs. 3,72,10,370 and upholding the decision of the AO.The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar. The AO at the time of the original assessment Under Section 143(3) noticed that the assessee has made a claim of a deduction of Rs. 3,72,10,370 from its profit regarding the interest amount payable on cash credit for Sakharwadi/Lakshmiwadi factories to the Bank of India. He disallowed the claim for deduction on account of interest payable to the extent of Rs. 3,72,10,370 to the Bank of India on the ground that it is shown as contingent liability in the annual report of the company and that it has not crystallized during the year. On appeal, the CIT(A) remanded the matter back to the file of the AO directing him to verify the facts and also to consider the correspondence from the Bank of India stating that the ban...

Gopal S/O Ramchandra Abewal and Meerabai W/O Dhannulal Shendiwale Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR26

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is an application filed Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. lodged by Respondent No. 3 on 24.4.2007 at Sadarbazar Police Station, Jalna for offences Under Sections 420, 468, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.2. For amplification of understanding the nature of dispute, a brief resume of facts may be taken. The dispute relates to an open plot bearing CTS No. 4076, admeasuring 9277 Sq.ft. According to the Respondent No. 3, who lodged the F.I.R., he agreed to purchase the said open plot for consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. He paid earnest amount of Rs. 51,000/-to the owners Nandkishor Jaiswal and others. He was inducted in possession thereof. About a month prior to lodging of the F.I.R. he came to know that the applicant Nos. l and 2 have fabricated a false document styled as 'Taba Isar Pawati' dated 30.3.1999 which was purportedly executed by original owner Lalchand Bhurelal Yadav. They were abusing and were giving threats to him. T...

Chinchni Tarapur Education Society's English Medium School Vs. Mrs. Su ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR899; 2008(2)BomCR219; 2008(1)MhLj513

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the judgment and order of the School Tribunal delivered on 23.3.2007. The School Tribunal has passed this order in Appeal No. 1 of 2007 filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of supersession, promoting the respondent No. 2 herein to the post of headmistress from 12.6.2005. 2. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as an un-trained teacher on 12.9.1992 in the secondary section of the school run by the Chinchni Tarapur Education Society. She continued to work as an Assistant Teacher in the school. When the post of the headmistress fell vacant. she was not appointed to that post and instead respondent No. 2 was appointed as a headmistress. According to the respondent No. 1, she secured her B.Ed. degree in the year 1994. However, this degree was not recognised as it was obtained from the Annamalai University. She, therefore, secured the B.Ed. degree from Yashwantrao Chavan Open University on...

Advani Oerlikon Limited Vs. Shri Shashikant M. Sable and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR546; (2007)109BOMLR2751; [2008(116)FLR669]; (2008)IILLJ170Bom; 2008(1)MhLj393

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the award part I passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 563 of 1991. The Labour court has held that the three enquiries conducted against the respondent workman were not fair and proper. It has permitted the petitioners to lead fresh evidence before it in support of the charges levelled against the respondent workman. The main reason which appealed to the Labour Court for concluding that the enquiries held against the workman were in breach of the principles of natural justice is that the enquiries were not conducted in a language known to the workman i.e., Marathi. The Labour Court was of the view that the enquiry officer who was a Konkani speaking person was not qualified to translate Marathi into English and vice versa. The Labour Court was of the view that this has caused prejudice to the workman and has therefore set aside the enquiry.2. The facts may be adumbrated as follows: Show-cause notices were issued to the respondent...

Sumant Madhav Nannaware and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR803; (2008)110BOMLR56; 2008(1)MhLj710

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard.2. The crux of the petition, which runs into twenty-five pages, including amendment, can better be grasped by referring to few paras therein, which are quoted, for convenience, as follows:2. The respondent Electricity Board, in pursuance of the Policy adopted in this regard for giving priority in employment to one person from each family affected by the land acquisition made for the Project incorporated regulations in the Classification and Recruitment Regulations, 1961 formulated by the Board in exercise of power conferred under Section 29[c] and [k] read with Section 15 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 named MSEB Classification & Recruitment Regulations, 1961.3. Appendix 'F' to the Recruitment Regulations deals with the employment of the land affected persons and provides for guidelines to be followed in such cases. The land affected persons has been defined as a person, whose house or land has been acquired full or partly should be treated as land affected ...

Mrs. Sarita S. Melwani, Proprietress, Carrying on Business in the Firm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR548; 2008(1)BomCR561; [2008(117)FLR791]; 2008(1)MhLj522

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. The petition challenges the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 838 of 2000 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent workmen. The order passed by the Industrial Court in revision application (ULP) No. 267 of 2005 has also been challenged in this petition since it confirms the order of the Labour Court. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The petitioner is the Proprietress of an establishment known as M/s.Sarat Indian registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as management). The management is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of melamine crockery. Undisputedly, Respondent No. 1 has been working with the management from January 1984 whereas Respondent No. 2 has worked since August 1986. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) were issued notices on 16.8.2...

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj882

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The petitioner is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee of Nagpur, constituted within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred for brevity as the said Act). The Market Committee is a local authority and is constituted by the enactment and is vested with statutory powers and functions.The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondent No. 3 on 24-4-1992, by which he has de-notified from regulation the splits of Pulses (Dal).2. The facts as narrated by the petitioner in the petition, in oral submission and then by filing written submissions can be summarized as follows:(a) APMC, Nagpur formulated a proposal under Section 2 read with Section 62 of the Act and Schedule thereto, and submitted it to the respondent No. 3 requesting for issuing an order under Section 4 of the Act for including the Split of Pulses (Dal) as agricultural produce for regulation of its trade in the area of...