Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

Sumaraj Seafoods (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)112ITD177(Mum.)

1. All these appeals are filed by the assessee directed against separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), XXXIII, Mumbai for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. As the issues arising in all these appeals are common, for the sake of convenience they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.2. The assessee is a private limited company and is in the business of processing of marine products, storing the same in its cold storage plant and then exporting the same. The common issue in all the three appeals is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction under Section 80-IB as well as under Section 80HHC. The assessing officer observed that the deduction under Section 80-IB is allowable to an industrial undertaking which fulfils certain conditions. As a basic condition to be satisfied is that it should be an industrial undertaking and i...

Jagannath Namdev Ambekar, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR181; (2007)109BOMLR1426; 2008(1)MhLj241

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. The simple question involved in this matter is whether the Principal Secretary of the State would have the prerogative to overrule/change the decision taken by the State Minister for Revenue in quasi judicial matters under the Government of Maharashtra Rules of business.4. Brief facts involved in this petition are that, the ancestor of the petitioners was tenant in the property of Survey No. 44, admeasuring 1 Hector 63 Ares, located at Maliwada, District Ahmednagar, on the tiller's day as per the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and after the enquiry as per Section 32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the said Tukaram Ambekar was declared as statutory purchaser as per the order dated 1.8.1964. After payment of the purchase price as determined by the Government aut...

Utkarsha Gruha Nirman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR360; 2007(5)BomCR667; 2007(5)MhLj697

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard counsel appearing for the parties.2. By an order, dated 30-8-2006, parties were put to notice that the petition would be heard finally at the stage of admission. Rule, returnable forthwith.3. This is the case to demonstrate as to how owners of land face numerous difficulties to develop their own properties.4. The petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960') viz. Utkarsha Gruha Nirman Co-operative Society Ltd., Nakshatrawadi, at Aurangabad. According to petitioner, it was registered on 1-3-1983. The petitioner filed proposal for grant of Non-Agriculture (for short 'N.A.') permission to develop the property in Block No. 5 of Nakshatrawadi, at Aurangabad town, in the year 1982. A fresh proposal was filed in the month of July, 2002 in the Collectorate, Aurangabad.5. According to petitioner, there are in all 81 members of the petitioner society. The Marathwada Developm...

Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Namdev Tukaram Pedneka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR238; 2008(1)BomCR499

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.FACTS:2. The petitioner-Bank is a Society registered under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is an Apex Bank in the Co-operative Banking Sector in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the said Bank and was appointed as Grade II Officer oh probation on 23/3/1992. During the period from July, 1991 to April, 1992 the Bank had recruited about 618 candidates in various categories.3. The Commissioner for Cooperation and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pune informed the Bank by his letter dated 24/11/1992 that the Bank had not followed the recruitment procedure and further informed the petitioner Bank not to confirm these persons in the services of the Bank. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 1 was one such employee who had been recruited during the relevant period.4. The Bank was ...

Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Udhe India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ371Bom

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43/2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Sections 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970] (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(1)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, th...

ilandfs Investsmart Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue relates to rejection of refund claim of Rs. 6,75,000/- under Section 11B(1) and 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable vide Section 83V of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants got registered with the Division 3, Service Tax Commissionerate under the category of banking and other financial services. They filed a refund application on 02.07.2003 for an amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- as in the course of providing services they had issued two debit notes on two different parties for the services agreed to be provided in terms of following details: 3. The appellants further state that after raising the said debit notes, the stipulated services were not provided by the appellants as the service assignments got cancelled. There was no payment by the parties concerned towards the amount of the debit notes including the amount of Service Tax. Since there was no service provided, the value of taxable service was also nil for the said two assignments which never materialised....

Vikram Ispat Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)8STR559

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs. 1,80,23,306/- together with penalty of equal amount under Section 78 and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. 1994. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants herein are rendering Port Services which have been defined as "any services rendered by a Port or other port or any person authorized by such port or other port, in any manner, in relation to a vessel or goods". The applicants are held to be "other port" and the services rendered by them are hiring barges, tugs, floating cranes etc. for which they receive hiring income on which service tax has been confirmed.2. Submissions are raised before us on the aspect of limitation - the period of demand ranged from 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2006 while the show cause notice has been issued on 8.6.2006. The demand, according to the applicants, is partly barred by limitation and only part of the demand falls within...

Mercator Lines Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit, Range 5(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue against the respective orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since common issues are involved in these appeals these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. These appeals are preferred by the assessee on almost common grounds. We, therefore, adjudicate them on the basis of issues involved therein.3. In appeal No. 8045/M/2003 first ground relates to the validity of reopening of assessment. During the course of hearing this ground was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. As such it is dismissed being not pressed.4. Next issue in these appeals relates to the computation of deduction under Section 33AC. For the sake of reference we take up the facts for the assessment year 1997-98 in ITA No. 8045 of 2003 in which the assessee, claimed deduction under Section 33AC on interest income and miscellaneous income amounting to Rs. 1,22,630 besides other business income of oper...

Shri Sadguru Sales/Proprietor Shri Arun Raosaheb Inamdar Vs. the State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1446; 2007CriLJ3854; 2007(5)MhLj638

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. 3. Heard Mr. Deshmukh the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kasare the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. Perused the copies of the relevant documents. 4. To state in brief, the present petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent no.2 on 15-12-2005. In complaint, it was alleged that the accused had issued a cheque on 3-10-2005 in favour of the petitioner/complainant for payment of Rs.3,62,171/ in discharge of part of the existing debt or liability. The cheque was issued against ICICI Bank, Thane. The cheque was presented to the bank for encashment and it was returned to the complainant on 20-10-2005 with a memo of the bank showing that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The petitioner issued a notice to the respondent no.2 by Registered Post A.D. on 7-11-...

The First Custodian Fund (India) Limited, Vs. the Nedungadi Bank Limit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj295

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The petitioners in these three criminal writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) are the accused in the two complaints filed by respondent 1 -the Nedungadi Bank Limited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kozhikode, Kerala. 2. In Criminal Writ Petition No.268 of 2003, the petitioners seek quashing of C.C. No.4 of 2003. The said complaint is filed by respondent 1 against Rajendra Kumar Banthia (accused 1 therein), the First Custodians Fund (India) Limited (accused 2 therein), Manish Banthia (accused 3 therein) and Surendra Kumar Banthia (accused 4 therein). This petition is filed by the First Custodian Fund (India) Limited (accused 2), Manish Banthia (accused 3) and Surendra Kumar Banthia (accused 4). 3. In Criminal Writ Petition No.355 of 2003 and Criminal Writ Petition No.356 of 2003, the petitioners seek quashing of C.C. No.3 of 2003. C.C. No.3 ...