Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

income Tax Officer Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)292ITR1(Mum.)

1. The Hon'ble President. Tribunal, has constituted this Bench to decide this appeal as well as to adjudicate the following question of law: Whether, the phrase 'a residential house' used in Sub-section (1) of Sections 54 and 54F means one residential house or more than one residential house independently located In the same building/compound/city At the outset, we would like to point out the reasons for constituting this Bench. This appeal came up before the Division Bench. The Revenue contended that exemption under Section 54/54F of the IT Act, 1961 (Act) would be available only in respect of investment made in one residential house. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik v. PB Rane ITO . On the other hand, the assessee contended that the exemption under the aforesaid sections would be available even if investment is made in the two house properties though distantly located from each other. Reliance was placed on the ...

Smt. Bhavna Thanawala Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of CIT(A)-XVIII, Mumbai dated 6-1-2003 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 against the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The only issue in the present appeal raised by the assessee is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of assessing officer in denying the relief under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of long-term capital gains invested in acquiring undivided share in residential ownership premises partly owned by your Appellant.3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had shown income from long-term capital on sale of shares amounting to Rs. 23,93,305. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 22,08,275 on account of investment made in acquiring an additional share in the property in which the assessee was already ...

Dr. Shashikant D. Karnik Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Anti Cor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)BC337; (2007)109BOMLR934; 2008CriLJ148

D.G. Deshpande, J 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.2. This petition was earlier before the Bench of Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ. Since they passed an order 'Not before this court, as Hon'ble Smt. Justice R.P. Desai is a member', this Petition is assigned to us, by the Acting Chief Justice.3. The prayer in this petition is to quash and set aside the order of freezing the Bank accounts and Bank lockers of the Petitioner and his family members by the Police officers in this case and to defreeze all the accounts at (Exhibit 'A') and permit the petitioner and his family members to operate all those bank accounts as per Exhibit 'A' and the bank lockers. As per affidavit of Rajendrasinh Govindsinh Pardeshi, Assistant Commissioner of police, attached to Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, filed in reply to this petition, he has stated that C.R. No. 33/2002 was registered against the petitioner and others for committing mal practices pursuant to criminal co...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Rallaram Khurana P/O Punjab Har ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR806; [2007]79SCL21(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard Mr. Anad Parchure, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Devani, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. These two applications are filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal dated 25/01/1994 in R.A. Nos. 129 & 130/Nag/94 declining to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court.:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the CIT (A) Nagpur was justified in cancelling the penalty so imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts were offered only to buy peace and avoid litigation and does not represent the concealed income of the assessee3. The assessment years involved herein are; 1985-86 and 1986-87.4. The dispute in these two applications pertains to deletio...

Jaideo Son of Kacharu Patil Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR36; 2007(4)BomCR255; 2007(6)MhLj144

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is called for final disposal by consent. After notice by this Court, contesting respondent has filed affidavit.2. Heard.3. The petitioner herein was appointed in the employment of respondent No. 2. Prior to appointment, as per the conditions of service, like any other candidate, petitioner had to undergo the mandatory procedure of furnishing information in the Attestation Form. The Attestation Form contained three warnings. Warning No. 2, which is relevant, reads as follows:2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier, as the case may be failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.[quoted from page 21 of the paper-book of the Writ Petition].4. Admittedly, the Attestation Form was submitted o...

Suman Dattatraya Kadam Vs. Shobha Kailas Bonekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR518

Borde R.M., J.1. The instant Review Application is filed by original respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 Shobha Kailash Bonekar v. Cantonment Executive Officer reported in 2007(3) Bom.C.R. 1 praying for recalling the judgment dated 31.1.2007 passed on a reference by Five Judges Bench of this Court. The grounds of objections raised in the application objecting to the verdict delivered by the Bench are serialized as below:(a) According to the applicant, although the dispute between the contesting parties i.e. original respondent No. 3 and original respondent No. 1 relates to 'seniority and promotion', by reading para No. 3 of the judgment, it appears that the Court proceeded to determine the issue on the footing that the subject-matter relates to 'disciplinary action'. This mistake, according to the applicant, is an error on the face of record.(b) An objection is raised in paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 of the application as regards non consideration of provisions of Section 2(2) o...

Smt. Urmila Varma Vs. Shankar Richhpal Varma

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom147; 2007(5)ALLMR394; 2008(2)BomCR482; I(2008)DMC13

A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. This is an application filed by the wife invoking provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of a petition for divorce filed by the respondent-husband from the file of Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. Due to the efforts made by the advocates appearing for the parties an amicable settlement has been arrived at and consent terms are filed on record. The consent terms provide that both the parties will file appropriate application before the Family Court at Mumbai for converting the petition filed by the respondent into a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Adequate provision has been made in the consent terms for payment of maintenance to the minor children. The consent terms are filed considering the peculiar facts of this case. The allegation made in this a...

Sanjeev Kumar S/O Rajdharrao More Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj499

ORDERR.M. Borde, J.1. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Tokre Koli', a Scheduled Tribe. It is the case of the petitioner that for seeking employment, he obtained a certificate certifying that he belongs to 'Tokre Koli', a Scheduled Tribe, which was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification in the year 1994. It appears that the petitioner appeared for the State Civil Services' Examination held in the year 1992. He was qualified in the preliminary examination and was called upon to appear for main examination. The petitioner got through the main examination held in the year 1992 and was called for the interview and after undergoing the oral test successfully, the petitioner was selected for the post of Tahsildar along with several other candidates. The Tribe claim of the petitioner was required to be referred to the Committee for verification. As such, he was called upon to submit documents in support of his claim. It appears that the matter which was referred to the Com...

New Ways Advertising Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dt. 23-12-04, which upheld the order-in-original that imposed penalty on the appellants under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act.2. The relevant fact that arises for consideration the appellants are holders of Service Tax Registration Certificate and are rendering services as 'Advertising Agency Services'. The appellant failed to furnish quarterly return in Form-ST-3 for the quarter ending June 1997 and also failed to pay service tax pertaining to the period from November 1996 to June 1997 within the stipulated period. The lower authority brought to the notice of the appellant that they have mpt (sic)(not) discharged the service tax liability. On being pointed out about such non-discharge of service tax liability, the appellant discharged the service tax liability and the interest thereof. Show cause notices were issued in June 1998 directing the appellant to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed on them under Section 76 and 7...

Sahyadri Aerosols Ltd. (In Liq.) Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer Under Section 154 withdrawing interest Under Section 244A. 2. The appellant submits that the order passed Under Section 154 is illegal and invalid and the same requires to be cancelled. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Indemnity Bond was filed because of the absence of original TDS Certificates. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the provisions of law, the appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to cancel the order Under Section 154.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 18.11.1997 claiming credit for the tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 45,38,865/-. The assessee has filed a photocopy of the acknowledgement sheet before us, which shows that the assessee had, inter-alia, filed 10 certif...