Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

Rakesh Enterprises Services Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR577

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. P-I/147/2006 dated 18/04/2006.2. The relevant fact that arises for consideration are the appellant was providing services of security agency. The said security agency was covered under service tax net from 1998. The appellant applied for the registration with the service tax authorities on 22/04/2003 and obtained the service tax registration.3. On an intelligence, the officers visited the premises of the appellants in August 2005. On scrutiny of the records and investigation, it was found that the appellants had not paid service tax due from them for the period April 2000 to March 2004. It was also noticed that after taking registration in April 2003, the appellants were not filing the service tax returns in prescribed form and shown less value of the taxable services provided. On the conclusion of investigation, show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax payable by him for the period April 2002 to Mar...

Express Transport (P) Ltd. and Abb Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC30

1. These two appeals are directed against the order-in-original No.24/06-07 CC (X) dated 26/02/2007.2. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same order-in-original, they are being disposed of by a common order.3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. ABB Ltd., filed Shipping Bill No. 4111444 dated 3/3/2006 through CHA for NJ CD Battery. FOB value declared by M/s. ABB Ltd., was Rs. 1.87 lakhs approximately and they claimed drawback on such exports. The said goods were detained by the proper officer, physical examination of goods and documents, such as, check list and other related documents were scrutinized by the authorities. At this stage, it was found that duty the draw back claimed by the exporter was not matching and the total draw back claim of all shipping bill seems to be exaggerated. Based on these, the consignment was seized and investigations were initiated. Statements of various persons were recorded and show cause notices were issued to both the appellants aski...

Orix Auto and Business Solutions Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The 1st Grievance of the assesses is that the learned CIT (A) has erred in granting Depreciation @ 20% instead of 40% on the vehicles used by the Assessee in the course of its business.2.2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee, at the very outset, submitted that this issue earlier arose in AY 1997-98. The learned CIT (A) has granted Depreciation @ 20%. However, on appeal to the Tribunal, the the depreciation was granted to the ssessee @ 40%. He placed on record a copy or the Tribunal's Order in AY 1997-98 in ITA No. 180/Mum/2002.2.3. We find that the learned CIT (A) has granted depreciation to the assessee @ 20% by following the Order of the learned CIT (A) in AY 1997-98. The order of the learned CIT (A) in AY 1997-98 has been challenged before the Tribunal by the Asessee in ITA No. 180/Mum/2002 and the Tribunal allowed the Depreciation to the assessee @ 40% by following the decision in the case of DOT v. Telco Dealers Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd. In ITA No. 413/Mum/1996 for the AY 1...

V. Mahesh, Ito Vs. Vikram Sadanand Hoskote

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The following grounds have been raised by the revenue in this appeal. (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erredin law in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,57,383 made out of interest claimed and directing to recompute the short-term capital gains. (2) The appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the above ground(s) be set aside and the order of the assessing officer be restored.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee is a Chartered Accountant. Apart from the professional work, he had purchased shares on 22-5-1998, of Orient Information Technology Ltd., out of the borrowed funds of Rs. 59,45,000 received from Ketan Sheth & Co.According to the assessee, all these shares agreed to be sold to certain parties. Since these parties could not make the payments, the assessee did not deliver the shares. It was only in February, 1999, that payments were received from those parties, and from the sale pro...

Sovika Infotek Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Both these appeals are filed by the assessee and are directed against separate orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 12-3-2004 for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-01. For the sake of convenience both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.2. We have heard Shri R.R. Vora on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Geeta Ravi Chandran on behalf of the revenue.3. There are three issues in this appeal which are connected to disallowance of exemption under Section 10B, on income arising from sale of licences amounting to Rs. 1,21,274.4. The first argument of the assessee, is on the issue of reopening.The return for the assessment year 1998-99 was filed on 30-11-1998 and the same was processed under Section 143(1) on 8-11-2000. Notice under Section 148 was issued on 4-4-2002, i.e., within a period of four years. Thus, it is not a case where the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and where the reopening is beyond a perio...

Manoj M. Shah Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the department, against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2-5-2001. The appeal relates to assessment year 1994-95. We find it convenient to dispose of both of them by a consolidated order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not allowing a sum of Rs. 56,00,000 paid as entrancefees and admission fees to the Stock Exchange, Mumbai, as revenueexpenses.3. The short question in this appeal is whether expenditure of Rs. 56 lakhs incurred by the assessee towards acquisition of membership of Bombay Stock Exchange by way of entrance fee and admission fee is capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) have held that the impugned expenditure is capital expenditure.4. In support of appeal, the learned Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions which were earlier made before the Commissioner ...

Ark Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Grt Shipmanagement Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR516; 2008(1)ARBLR317(Bom); 2007(6)BomCR311

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked Part II and specially Section 45 to 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, 'Arbitration Act-1996) to enforce the foreign award dated 29th August, 2005 and 9th October, 2006 made and published in Singapore.The facts are:2. The respondents, some time in February, 2004, entered into negotiations with the petitioners through broker for the purposes of chartering a vessel for carriage of cargo in several shipments from ports in Indonesia to ports in India. 3. A signed recap dated 22nd March, 2004 executed by the parties containing main terms of the contract. However, it was conditional upon lifting of 'subjects'. The respondents on 22nd March, 2004 lift all subjects and thereby confirm the fixtures/ contract. Between 22nd to 25th March, 2004, various emails were exchanged between the parties through brokers to confirm the terms of the contract in accordance with the proforma charter party. 4. Some time in March, 2004,...

Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Surekha Sitaram Pophale and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR657; 2008(1)BomCR851; (2007)109BOMLR1689; [2008(116)FLR455]; 2007(6)MhLj271

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petitioners in all these petitions run a school mainly for the children of their employees. It appears that the workforce in the petitioners' factory reduced as a result of which the number of students in the school declined. The petitioners were, therefore, compelled to reduce classes in the primary section. The Petitioners consequently applied to the Education Officer on 20.6.1987 under Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules for permission to retrench 10 permanent teachers. Certain queries were raised by the Education Officer in his letter of 8.12.1987. The Petitioners answered these queries and submitted various documents including the seniority list of the employees who would be affected by the retrenchment. The petitioners had also sought permission to retain two junior teachers, one of whom, Smt. P.P. Patki, was a widow. The petitioners considered it their social obligation to retain her in service because of exceptional circumstances. As regards the other teacher, Sh...

Ganesh S/O. Mahadeorao Thawre Vs. Central Hindu Military Education Soc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR105; 2007(5)BomCR680; 2007(6)MhLj589

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent of the parties.2. Petitioner, Head Master of Bhonsla Military School, Nagpur, has challenged decision of respondent management to conduct an enquiry into his misconduct through a Committee consisting of Sarvashree Kumar Kale and Yashwant Kharpate on the ground that the Enquiry Committee is not constituted as required under Rule 36(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short 'MEPS Rules').3. Respondent No. 2 has filed written submissions which have been countered by rejoinder by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also filed further additional submissions. Though the parties have thus furnished elaborate pleadings, on facts there is hardly any dispute between the parties. The petitioner is, undisputedly, Head Master of the School at Nagpur. Respondent No. 1 runs another school at Nasik. Memorandum and Articles of Association of respondent...

Nandkumar S. Kale Vs. Bhaurao Chandrabhanji Tidke and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4641

ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. This is a revision by an accused. A few facts may be stated thus:The applicant is a police officer. At the relevant time he was working as in-charge of the Police Station Civil Lines, Akola. On 2-12-96 the non-applicant No. 1 had lodged a report with the police station Civil Lines, Akola. He had alleged that his daughter-in-law along with her relative had committed robbery, trespass and theft. The police refused to take cognizance of the said complaint of Bhaurao i.e. non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1, therefore, filed criminal complaint case bearing No. 1280/01 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Judicial Magistrate First Class in the said criminal complaint passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed the police to investigate into the matter. On this an offence was registered by the police, initially the offence was investigated ...