Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Vaishali A. Shelar and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113ITD1(Mum.)

1. These are group of 222 appeals. The names of the appellants and respondents are respectively mentioned. All these appeals arise out of the orders of the CIT(A) for the impugned years under appeal.2. Admittedly, all these appeals involve identical issues and so we have grouped them together and dispose of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. It may be stated that the facts and circumstances in each of the case are more or less identical and it has been agreed by both the sides that we may take up one appeal for consideration and accordingly dispose of all other appeals. The representatives for the assessees were different advocates and chartered accountants; in some cases none appeared. Shri V.H. Patil was the Authorized Representative for some of the assessees. He was the one who argued for most of the assessees and it may be stated that the other Authorized Representatives have only followed his lines of argument. Shri B.R. Kamat, the learned Departmental Repres...

Karlmjee (P.) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The cross appeals for the assessment year 2001-02 and the assessee's appeal for the same year against levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c), which involved common facts are disposed off by this common order as under: 2. The common issue in the quantum appeals by the assessee and the F department pertains to allowance of depreciation on windmills acquired by the assessee on hire purchase basis. On this issue the assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-XXX(Commissioner (Appeals)) erred in failing to properly appreciate the terms of the hire purchase agreement and the transaction of the appellant in acquisition of the windmills and erred in holding that the transactions amounted to Gsale transactions with deferred payment terms. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have allowed depreciation on windmills A as claimed in view inter alia CBDT's Circular No. 9, dated 23-3-1943. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) erred...

Chandanmal Mishrimal Lalwani Vs. Mangilal Mishrimal Bafnma and Hastima ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR859; 2007(3)BomCR620; (2007)109BOMLR1068; 2007(4)MhLj749

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard Mr. Brahme, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mantri, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner, in this writ petition, was third party applicant, who had filed an application in special civil suit No.56 of 1990 (Special Civil suit No. 42 of 1979, which was earlier pending in the Court of C.J.S.D. Dhule), pending in the court of learned C.J.S.D. Nandurbar, for bringing himself on record as legal heir of deceased Jadavbai w/o Mishrilal Lalwani. It was the contention of the present petitioner, that the plaintiff Jadavbai resident of Nandurbar, was the mother of the applicant. Jadavbai died on 2.9.1998 at Nandurbar. The petitioner is the only legal heir of deceased Jadavbai. The petitioner needs to be brought on record as legal heir of deceased Jadavbai in the pending Special Civil Suit No.56 of 1990. This application has been filed b...

Sarva Shramik Sanghatana Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR657; (2007)109BOMLR1066; [2007(114)FLR571]; 2007(4)MhLj752

V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the agreement executed between the respondent No. 1 and the registered union dated 3.9.2006. It is the case of the petitioner is that this agreement is not in the interest of workers. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement is not in conformity with the notice of change which was given by the employer. It is further submitted that as a result of this agreement, the company would close down and as a result of that, the petitioners who are the remaining 68 workers are seriously affected. He also submitted that this agreement is in violation of 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He invited my attention to the notice of change and also the various promises in the agreement which was executed between the respondent No. 1 company and its registered union. He also invited my attention to the impugned order...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agricultural Produce and Market Committ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Bom)386; [2007]291ITR419(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The common question of law raised by the Revenue in all these appeals is,Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the market committees constituted under the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 are established for charitable purposes and accordingly directing the Commissioner of Income-tax to grant registration under Section 12A/12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, advocate for the appellants and Mr. Thakkar, advocate, for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. All these appeals are admitted on the above question of law and by consent of both the parties all these appeals are taken up for final hearing, since the question of law raised is common, all these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.4. Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) prior to April 1, 2003, income of all the local authorities was exempt...

Vidarbha Agro Service Centre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR145; 2007(4)BomCR307; 2007(4)MhLj249

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard with consent.2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is a Government Company and undertakes various activities. Its description as given in first para of Return reads as follows:1. At the outset the respondents state that the respondent No. 2 is a Government Company and is under total control of the State Government. Government has 100% shares of respondent No. 2 Company. The main business of the company is to produce fertilizers and insecticides to the agriculturists and Agro Service Centres and retail and wholesale dealers dealing in sale and purchase agriculture produce. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 thus play a prime role in the matter of agricultural development. The Corporation has given 3% share in profits in Central Government and State Government. The corporation is functioning since 1-4-1989 and it sells fertilizers and insecticides on credit to the dealers like petitioner.... (quoted from page 35 of the paper-book of th...

Shivaji Maruti Shingate and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR695; 2007(4)MhLj109

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were the elected members of the Gram Panchayat known as Mangnoor @ Sawatwadi Gram Panchayat. They have resigned their membership. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are the existing members. Elections to the Gram Panchayat were held in May, 2005. The strength of the Gram Panchayat consists of 7 members. The petitioner No. 4 was elected as Sarpanch and respondent No. 6 as Deputy Sarpanch There were some dispute about the election of respondent No. 6 as Sarpanch. On account of this dispute, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 visited the village on 4.8.2006 and declared respondent No. 6 elected as Deputy Sarpanch, The said declaration was made without calling the petitioners for the meeting and taking their opinion or votes of the petitioners and behind their back, thereby cancelling the earlier election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch, The petitioners, in the circumstances, as set out above, tendered their resignation.3. It is the case of t...

Mars Enterprises Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR752

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Counsel for respondents.2. Petitioners, by this petition, are seeking the following reliefs:a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the petitioners' case and to go into the legality and propriety thereof and to quash and or set aside the said bill dated 6.2 of 2004 being Exhibit-N to the petition.b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the petitioners' case and to go into the legality and propriety thereof and to quash and or set aside the order of the Investigating Officer dated 5.2.2004 being Exhibit O.c) That this Hon'ble High Court ...

Azizunissa Adburrahman Kadri Vs. Jamila Abdul HusseIn Shaikh (Since De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR432; 2007(4)BomCR769

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. One Abdul Hussein Kasam Sheikh, died intestate at Bombay on 30th August, 1983 at the age of 84 years. (the deceased). The plaintiff, the daughter from first wife of the deceased, has filed the present suit for administration of the estate on 3rd February, 1984 as the deceased left diverse movable and immovable properties in Bombay (Khar) and at (Karad) Satara, as described in Exhibit 'A'. The plaintiff has restricted her claim to the said immovable properties.2. Defendant No. 1 Jamila Shaikh was third wife of the deceased. She died on 18th July, 2003; defendant Nos. 2 to 12 are the other heirs of the deceased being the deceased brother's children. As pending the suit, defendant No. 1 by way of a memorandum of oral family settlement dated 18th August, 1999 alongwith the declaration, alleged to have transferred the properties to defendant Nos. 1(G) to 1(J). Therefore, after her death these defendants have been brought on record.3. Admittedly, the parties are governed...

Gangadhar Kashinath Patwari Vs. Sunanda Nilkanthrao Badgire (Reddy) an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR792; 2008(3)BomCR883

Deshmukh S.B., J.1. Heard Mr. Bhore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for respondents. The petitioner, is the respondent in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 35 of 2005 filed in the Court of learned M.A.C. Tribunal at Udgir, District Latur by the respondents/original claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988' for short). The petitioner is also respondent in another application filed by the respondents/claimants under Section 140 of the Act 1988 in the same Court.2. The petitioner, moved an application at Exh. 23 in M.A.C.P. No. 35 of 2005 on 31.3.2006. The respondent by an application, requested the learned Member, M.A.C. Tribunal to hear the application under Section 140 and 166 of the Act, 1988. In other words, the petitioner requested for hearing no fault liability application under Section 140 together with application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988.3. The learned trial Court, record...