Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

ito Vs. Kamu Metals (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A). We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record.2. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following effective grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the finding of the assessing officer that since the assessee is holding units by way of investment, it cannot be said to be in business. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is engaged in business of investment and the professional fees incurred thereon is allowable as business expenditure.3. The facts, in brief, are that original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 21-11-1999 wherein, the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, case was re-opened under Section 148. In the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessing officer noted that the assess...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Raju Lalchand Sud

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)301ITR165(Mum.)

1. IT (SS) A No. 155/Mum/2002: This appeal is by the assessee for the block period 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1998 and broken period 01.04.1998 to 1709 1998.2. The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the validity of the block assessment order passed on 28 11 2000. According to the assessee, this order is null and void as the order should have been passed on or before 30.09.2000, in accordance with the provisions of Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the period 17.09.1998 to 13.11.1998, there was a search and seizure action under Section 132(1), in the case of Al Samit International and its partners - Shri Gulam Mohd. Peshimam and Shri Javed Mohd. Peshimam. There was a search action on 17.09.1998 in the case of the assessee, being a recruitment consultant working with Al Samit International, at his residence, 303/304 Classic Corner, 136 Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai. All persons are connected with M/s Al Samit Int...

Fancy Corporation Limited Vs. Girdhari Mangru Yadav

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR622; (2007)109BOMLR871; [2007(113)FLR953]

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused petition. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Labour Court in Application (BIR) No. 740 of 1984 dated 25th April, 1995 and the common order passed by the Industrial Court dated 7th January, 2003 in Appeal (IC) No. 69 of 1995 and, inter-alia, prayed that the said orders be quashed and set aside and the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the respondent by the order of dismissal dated 14.5.1984 be upheld and confirmed. FACTS:3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner is a Company registered Companies Act, 1956, which had Kalachowky, Mumbai and now same has been closed down. a under factory that 4. The petitioner was engaged in doing machine embroidery work on cloth factory. The factory being industry, it was covered under Industrial Relations Act, 1946.( for short, 'the BIR Act'). a the in its textile Bombay 5. The respondent was employed in the Embroidery Department. He w...

Ultramatix Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR327; I(2008)BC365; 2007(5)BomCR862; 2007(4)MhLj847

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune dated 16-12-2003 and the order dated 22-3-2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 22 of 2004. A few essential facts may be set out. The respondent No. 1 bank has filed Original Application No. 97 of 2003 against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as the guarantors for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,91,63,589.52 ps as on 3-6-2003. During the pendency of the O.A., the respondent No. 1 preferred an application under Rule 2 Sub-rule (5) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Rules'. The application has to be read with Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act. The respondent No. 1 by way of relief sought an order to direct the petitioner and respondent N...

Bon Limited Vs. Hindustan Lever Employees Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR226; 2007(4)BomCR698; [2008(116)FLR191]; 2007(4)MhLj268

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Both these petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the reference which is made by the Government is maintainable. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under:3. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 474/2007 transferred its company to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 534/ 2007 Bon factory, Mumbai, by a deed of transfer and in the terms of settlement which was arrived between the parties, it was agreed that the workmen who were working with Hindustan Lever Ltd. in the said factory would be given an option to join services of Bon Limited. Pursuant to the said option which is given, all the workmen except 47 workmen had given their option and were transferred to the company Bon Limited with effect from 17.7.2005.4. Thereafter, the petitioner company Bon Limited made an application to the Compe...

Dcm Daewoo Motors Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR765; [2009]148CompCas665(Bom); [2007]79SCL1(Bom)

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The reliefs that have been sought in the company application are as follows:(a) That the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in Company Application No. 470 of 2002 dated 29th September, 2003 be modified and the respondent No. 2 be restrained from taking possession of any machinery or capital goods from the bonded warehouse of the Company in view of the said goods having been confiscated by the applicant by his order dated 16-1-2002;(b) That the Official Liquidator (respondent No. 1 herein) be directed to hand over possession forthwith of the capital goods in the said Company's bonded warehouse;(c) That the Centurion Bank (respondent No. 2) be directed not to sell or dispose of any of the goods which it has taken possession of from the respondent No. 1 pursuant to the order dated 29th September, 2003 and to hand over the same to the Applicant;(d) That the Centurion Bank (respondent No. 2) be declared liable to make good the value of the confiscated goods if the sam...

Shivajirao S/O Eknathrao Kovale and ors. Vs. Syed Mehmood S/O Syed Niz ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR132; 2007(5)MhLj641

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This Second Appeal has a checkered history. The dispute looms over span of more than 40 years. There is also a tinge of communal sensitivity attached to the dispute. For, the original plaintiffs claim that the suit properties are Inam lands of Dargah Niyamatullah Shah Quadri. Whereas, the contesting defendants claim the same as Inam lands of Namdeo Deosthan.2. The dispute relates to five agricultural lands. They are:S. No. 60 - Area 31 acres, 32 gunthasS. No. 62 - Area 35 acres, 29 gunthasS. No. 77 - Area 27 acres, 18 gunthasS. No. 78 - Area 9 acres, 19 gunthasS. No. 79/2 - Area 15 acres, 19 gunthasAll the above lands are situated at Haregaon. The place of alleged Dargah or Deosthan, whatsoever it may be, is situated in Survey No. 78.3. Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein are original plaintiffs. The appellants are contesting defendants. The respondents No. 6 to 11 are said to be members of temple Trust and concerned with Namdeo Deosthan. Respondent No. 12 supported the...

In Re: Imp Powers Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC183; 2007(4)BomCR761; [2008]142CompCas481(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In this proceeding, the consent of the court is sought to a scheme of an arrangement in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. As on September 30, 2005, 47.2 per cent, of the issued and subscribed share capital of the petitioner was held by promoters, 21.20 per cent, by financial institutions and 31.60 per cent, by members of the public. As on June 30, 2005, according to the petitioners, there was an outstanding of nearly Rs. 68 crores due to the secured creditors. The petitioners proposed a scheme of compromise and arrangement with the secured creditors. On December 23, 2004, the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell granted its approval to the proposal made by the petitioners and appointed a monitoring committee in order to sort out the outstanding issues and for monitoring the implementation of the reconstruction package.3. In pursuance of the orders passed by this court, a meeting was convened of the secured creditors on...

Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC52

1. These appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 1225 to 1226/2002 (62 to 63-Ahd-II) CE/Commr(A)/Ahd. dated 17.10.2002. (a) M/s Sandvik Choksi Ltd. exported two consignments in Dec. 2000 on payment of duty through merchant exporter M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. of Pune and they were found eligible for rebate of duty amounting to Rs. 5,91,964/- in one case and Rs. 6,81,357/- in another case. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the rebate claim, which has been sanctioned. (b) The demands amounting to Rs. 40,70,998/- and Rs. 16,52,899.60 pending since 1998 in respect of M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. and this is also not in dispute. The arrears involved in both the cases are due for recovery. (c) The history of evolution of the present appellant is claimed as follows: M/s Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. and Sandvik AB of Sweden have entered into a joint venture agreement dated 10.9.1996 and promoted a new company called Sanvik Choksi Pvt. Ltd. with Choksi Tubes Co. Ltd. holdin...

A.C. Exports and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC104

1. The brief facts of the case are that one M/s A.C. Exports a proprietary concern of Shri Anil Chandak who his taken Central Excise Registration for manufacture of lay flat tubing and carry bags have purchased 1468.470 MTs of raw materials i.e. HDPE/PP Granules from M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Calcutta during the period 01.04.2003 to 08.07.2003 and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on such granules procured from M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Calcutta and thereafter shown to have sent to various job workers to get lay flat tubing manufactured by them. Out of above quantity 1168.00 MTs of finished goods i.e. lay flat tubing in rolls was sold to M/s Hari Vishnu Packaging Ltd., Nagpur and 78.470 MTs of finished goods i.e. lay flat tubing in rolls was sold to various other parties on payment of duty, 190 MT of HDPE/PP Granules were sold as such by them to M/s Sunil Plastics, Thane on payment of duty and 32 MTs. Of waste was also sold on payment of duty.2. In respect of 1168 MTs of ...