Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Routermania Technologies (P.) Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer wherein depreciation on Routers was restricted to 25 per cent instead of 60 per cent as applicable to the computers.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3.The facts in brief are that the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 60per cent on computers and routers. The assessing officer has restricted the depreciation @ 25 per cent on routers having held that these are not computers. The assessing officer has examined the difference between the computers and routers, before holding that function of routers is only of communication of the data and is not a part of the computer system.The relevant observation of the assessing officer at page Nos. 2 to 4 are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:...

ito Vs. Aroni Chemical Industries Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue's appeal directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), XXXII, Mumbai dated 12-7-2002 for assessment year 1999-2000. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of profit of slump sale.3. On the date of hearing, the revenue has raised the following additional grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in the grounds enumerated below: 1. Alternatively, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the provisions ofsections 45 to 50 of the Income Tax Act under which capital gain is chargeable even on slump sale as held by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd v. Income Tax Officer 2. The appellant prays that the order of learned Commissioner (Ap...

Jyotsna K. Valia Vs. T.S. Parekh and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR718; 2007(3)BomCR772; 2007(4)CTC257; 2007(4)MhLj517; 2007(5)AIRKarR180; AIR2007NOC2237(FB)(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. A learned Single Judge noticing apparent inconsistencies or conflicts in judgments of learned Single Judges and of the Division Benches, as to whether a suit based on a writing or a receipt or an acknowledgement of liability, or honoured cheque or a settled account is maintainable as a summary suit, referred the matter to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who has placed the matter for consideration before the Full Bench. The issues which arise for our consideration and as referred to us, arise under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 (Summary Suit), in cases where the suit is based : i) On a settled account duly confirmed by the Defendants;ii) On a settled account which is not confirmed by the Defendants;iii) On an acknowledgment of liability;iv) On honoured cheque; andv) On a mere writing or a receipt;2. Before we proceed to answer the reference, we may consider the legislative history of the relevant rule of Order XXXVII. Order XXXVII Rule 2, the relevant rule, as originally enacte...

Jolly Brothers Private Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Provi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR736; 2007(4)BomCR171

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 24.2.1995 in Revenue Appeal No. 4/71 (2)/94-95-Amravati, passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati, by which the Appellate Authority under C.P. And Berar Letting of Premises And Rent Control Order, 1949 (herein referred as Rent Control Order) had set aside the common judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller, Amavati on 30.5.1994 in Revenue Case Nos. 135/71 (2)/88-89 and 136/71 (2)/88-89 of Amravati. 2. The original petitioner M/s Jolly Brothers Private Limited a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 through its Director Shri Surendra Sobharam Jolly had filed the present writ petitions in this Court under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order. In fact the said Company Jolly Brothers Private Limited originally had instituted proceedings for grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order before the R...

Smt. Purnima Shantilal Dedhia (Jain), Vs. the Maharashtra Housing and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR1; 2007(4)BomCR143; 2007(4)MhLj690

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioners are challenging the letter dated 29th March, 2005 which is addressed to the Petitioners and is sent by Deputy Engineer Co-Op. Cell, M.B.R. & R.B. Board. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners purchased property consisting of land and building and said auction sale was confirmed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In the meantime, tenants sent proposal to the Board Under Section 103B of the MHADA Act. The Petitioners initially sent letter to MHADA authorities and requested them to sent copy of proposal which was sent by the tenants. It is the case of the Petitioners that building does not require any repairs and as such question of acquisition of said building for repairs and re-construction did not arise. In reply to the said representation, the Deputy Engineer, M.B.R. & R.B. Board informed the Petitioners that the proposal was being processed fur...

Sarita Wd/O Hargovind Chauwhan Vs. Chetan S/O Hargovind Chauwhan and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom133

V.A. Naik, J.1. By an order dated 4-4-2007, this Court had issued notice to the respondents and had also put them to notice that the matter would be heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission, as the question involved in this first appeal is a short one.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy in this first appeal are briefly stated as under:The respondents are the minor children of one Shri Hargovind Chauwhan, who was allegedly murdered by the appellant and three others. The Succession Case bearing No. 13 of 2003 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through their next friend and Grandmother for grant of succession certificate. The State had registered an offence against the appellant-wife and three others for murdering her husband Hargovind, on 12-6-2002 at General Hospital, Bhandara. It is not in dispute that the Criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 452, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the appellant and oth...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahadeo Narayan More and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3153

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. This appeal by the appellant State, seeks to challenge the judgment of acquittal of respondents Mahadeo and Jagdeo in Sessions Trial No. 47/91, decided on 10-7-1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, by which they were acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.2. Facts leading to the prosecution of the respondents, are that,Deceased Sushila was the wife of P.W. 1 Sukhdeo. The respondents Mahadeo and Jagdeo are his brothers. All the three brothers were residing separately, but in the adjacent houses. P.W. 1 Sukhdeo had three she-goats. He sold two of them for Rs. 1200/ -. The third one was sold, thereafter; to one Rama for Rs. 311/-. It is alleged that the respondents were demanding the amount of this she-goat from him and his deceased wife Sushila. His wife Sushila refused to give that money, so also P.W. 1 Sukhdeo. On 16-10-1990 there was quarrel between him and the respondents on that count. It is alleged t...

Sarita Hargovind Chauwhan Vs. Chetan Hargovind Chauwhan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR814; 2008(2)BomCR926

Naik V.A., J.1. By an order dated 4-4-2007, this Court had issued notice to the respondents and had also put them to notice that the matter would be heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission, as the question involved in this first appeal is a short one.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy in this first appeal are briefly stated as under:The respondents are the minor children of one Shri Hargovind Chauwhan, who was allegedly murdered by the appellant and three others. The Succession Case bearing No. 13 of 2003 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through their next friend and Grandmother for grant of succession certificate. The State had registered an offence against the appellant wife and three others for murdering her husband Hargovind, on 12-6-2002 at General Hospital, Bhandara. It is not in dispute that the criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 452, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the appellant and oth...

Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot and anr. Vs. Roots and Herbs Pvt. Ltd. and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj777

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceeding in Reg. Criminal Case No. 245/1997 pending before J.M.F.C, Pune and registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by responded No. 1.2. To state in brief, the respondent No. 1/complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Dhoot Chemo Plast Pvt. Ltd., its two Directors and Finance Secretary. It was contended that the present applicants are the Directors and Executives of the Company carrying on the business in the name and style 'Dhoot Chemo Plast Pvt. Ltd.' The accused required the complainant to advance the loan of Rs. 15 Lakh with collateral security. As per the terms and conditions of the loan, the complainant had advanced the loan by two Demand Drafts, one of Rs. 10 Lakh and another of Rs. 5 Lakh. The Demand Drafts were received by the Finance Secretary of the company, who was accused No. 3. Out of the said am...

Proportions Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)11STJ53CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. There is a delay of about five months in filing this appeal. The applicant submits that he was suffering from arthritis during the period 15.5.2006 to 15.8.2006, in support of which medical certificate is annexed. There after he spend some time in search of expert tax consultant to file this appeal. The delay is convincing as such the same is condoned. Application is allowed.2. This appeal is filed against enhancement of penalty to Rs. 29,000/- (approximately) from Rs. 1,500/-. The appellant has already paid service tax amount of Rs. 31,000/- (approximately) and interest of Rs. 3,500/-. This amount is considered sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as such further pre deposit is waived in respect of penalty and stay is granted pending disposal of the appeal. Application is allowed. List the appeal in its turn....