Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Vraj Agency

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ280CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 13/10/2006, vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, covered by the decision of the Tribunal, I take up the appeal for final disposal in the absence of the respondent. Ld. DR re-iterates the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue.3. Considered the submission made in detail by the DR and perused the records. The issue involved in this case regarding the non-payment of Service Tax liability by the respondent for the services rendered of C&F agent services. Subsequently, the respondents discharged the service tax liability, after being pointed out by the authorities. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the penalties imposed on the respondent has come to the conclusion as under: In the instant case, the appellan...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Chintamani Mangal Karyalaya Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ61CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 21/08/2096, vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the services provided by the respondent as Mandap Keeper. The respondent did not get themselves registered for the said services provided.Subsequently, on being pointed out by the departmental officer, the respondent got themselves registered and discharged the service tax liability and interest thereon. Show cause notice was issued for the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax liability and non filing of returns by the respondent. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. On an appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found reasonable cause in non-payment of service tax and the interest thereon in time by the respondent, ...

Dy. Cit, Range 3(1) Vs. Dwarkaprasad Anil Kumar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110ITD247(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 20-1-2004 against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Mumbai dated 4-11 -2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to block assessment order under Section 158BC for the block period 1-4-1989 to 8-12-1999.2. In this appeal, the revenue has taken as many as 15 grounds of appeal that are as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred holding that the shares of M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. and M/s. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. held by the assessee were not t; in the nature of stock-in-trade and that the shares were held as 'investments' for the purpose of acquiring controlling stake. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in placing undue reliance on the return of income filed by the assessee before the search action under Section 132 for the assessment year 1998-99 wherein the conversion of sh...

Alcan Inc. Vs. Dy Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Mum.)328

1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and by the revenue, respectively. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. These appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXI, Mumbai, dated 15-12-2004 and arise out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act').2. The assessee is a Canadian company. The assessee had, over a period of time, acquired 3,88,44,324 shares of an Indian company by name Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. (Indal). The shares acquired by the assessee-company are of the following categories : 3. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee-company sold the entire Indal shares to another company Hindalco Industries Ltd. The shares were sold on at an agreed price of Rs. 190 per share. The long-term capital gains arising oui: of the above transaction was reported by the assessee-company at Rs. 317,71,30,910 in its return of income filed for the impugned assessment ye...

Alcan Inc. Vs. Ddit (international Taxation)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee and by the Revenue, respectively. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. These appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXI, Mumbai, dated 15.12.2004 and arise out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).2. The assessee is a Canadian company. The assessee had, over a period of time, acquired 3,88,44,324 shares of an Indian company by name Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. (Indal). The shares acquired by the assessee company are of the following categories.3. During the previous relevant to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee company sold the entire Indal shares to another company Hindalco Industries Ltd. The shares were sold on at an agreed price of Rs. 190/- per share. The long term capital gains arising out of the above transaction was reported by the assessee company at Rs. 317,71,30,910/- in its return of income filed for the impugned assessment year 2001-02. The capita...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Star Chemicals (Bom) (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Mum.)753

1. As common issues are involved in these two appeals filed by the Revenue on 15th Dec, 2003 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXVIII, Mumbai dt. 16th Oct., 2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 250 for asst. yr. 1995-96 and by assessee filed on 8th Jan., 2007 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXXII, Mumbai dt. 8th Nov., 2006 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 254 of the IT Act for asst. yr. 1994-95, they have been heard by us together at the request of Revenue and are being disposed of by this common order for convenience.2. These appeals have chequered history. For asst. yr. 1994-95 the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 1,39,97,130 on 30th Nov., 1994. The assessment order under Section 143(3) was made on 20th March, 1997 at total income of Rs. 1,79,08,424.The difference between assessed income and returned income arose on accou...

Vasant Nivrutti Gite and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of City of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR144; (2007)109BOMLR1333; 2007(4)MhLj871

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in all the Petitions. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith.2. The challenge in this Petition is to the decision taken by the Presiding Officer dated 7.4.2007 nominating Sudhakar Badgujar, Mushir Sayyad, Sharad Kisanrao Koshire as the members of the Standing Committee. The Petitioner No. belongs to Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena (MNS) whereas Petitioner No. 2 belongs to Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).The Petitioners contend that the elected candidates of NCP are 17 and considering the total number of councillors which is 108, the second respondents ought to have nominated three members belonging to NCP. On the contrary only two members have been nominated. Thus the second respondents ignored the relative strength of the parties as was required by the provisions of Section 31A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007 which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Ordinance'.The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2587 of 2007 are elected...

In Re: Mather and Platt Fire Systems Limited, A Company Incorporated u ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR642; [2008]142CompCas209(Bom); [2007]79SCL432(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The sanction of this Court is sought to a Scheme of Arrangement which the Petitioner proposes with its unsecured creditors under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies' Act, 1956. The Petitioner was incorporated on 2nd July 1993 under the Companies' Act, 1956 as Veedip Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. On 13th September 2001, the name of the Petitioner was changed to Mather & Platt Fire Systems Pvt. Ltd. and on 5th October 2001 to Mather & Platt Fire Systems Ltd. In or about July 2005, a Share Purchase Agreement was entered into between the erstwhile promoters of the Petitioner and Wilo AG, a German Company ('Wilo') under which Wilo agreed to acquire the shareholding of the erstwhile promoters in the Petitioner subject to certain compliances including the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1977. Pursuant to the agreement, Wilo acquired 18,87,697 shares of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has consequently become a subsidiary of Wilo. 2. The...

Rampyaribai Wd/O Sukhdeo Daga and ors. Vs. Niladevi Wd/O Narayandas Ja ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR95; 2007(4)MhLj213

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21-3-2006 below Ex. 66 in Regular Civil Suit No. 436 of 1998 refusing to review the order below Ex. 58 dated 12-1-2006 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati. There is a further prayer in the writ petition to direct the trial Court to decide the application (Ex. 37) under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code before deciding the suit on merits along with other issues.3. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 436 of 1998 for declaration, possession and injunction with respect to 32 gunthas of land and a house thereon at Amravati and plot No. 5, Sheet No. 64 known as 'Vijay Bagh' against the respondents. In the suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. On that application, on 25-9-1998 the trial Court issued ex parte interim injunction against the respondents which ...

Ghai Construction Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj862; [2009]184TAXMAN52(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner essentially seeks an order directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider his tender in respect of toll collection work at Lahuki on the Aurangabad-Jalna road and, an order quashing the process of considering the tenders, as he was excluded therefrom.2. At the outset, we must state in fairness to Mr. S.M. Godsay that we did not permit him to address us on all the allegations of mala fides raised by the petitioner. Considering the view that we have taken, we do not find it necessary to deal with the same.3. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Managing Director, the Financial Advisor and the Executive Engineer of the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (M.S.R.D.C), respectively. Respondent No. 5, M/s Ellora Constructions, is also one of the offerers. For convenience we will refer to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as the respondents.4. In or about Feb./March, 2006, M.S.R.D.C. had invited tenders for allotment of the toll collection contract at Lahuki on ...