Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Pranab Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)659

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The assessment year is 1997-98. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXVIII at Mumbai, dt. 21st Oct., 2004 and arises out of the order passed under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961. 1. The learned Dy. CIT was not justified in failing to appreciate and in not complying with the directions given by the learned CIT(A) in his appellate order dt. 12th Feb., 2001. The learned CIT(A) has also erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in this regard. 2. The appellant specifically challenges the following statements, findings, conclusions of the learned CIT(A) in para 2.5 of his order dt. 21st Oct., 2004: (a) No evidence has been filed by the appellant regarding TDS deducted. (b) Credit for TDS cannot be given in the absence of statutory certificate. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO was justified in not allowing the credit of tax claimed by the appellant. 4. The appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) ...

Syed Babali S/O Sayed Lal, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.P., ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1839

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Appellants are prosecuted for having committed murder of Digamber Shamrao Wankhede of Hadgaon, in furtherance of their common intention and for intentionally insulting and provoking him to commit breach of peace. They are convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 and are acquitted for offence punishable under Section 504 of the Penal Code by Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nanded. This order dated 10th June 2005 is impugned in the present appeal.2. At the outset we may notice relevant facts. Shamrao Wankhede resides with his wife Shantabai and three sons in the hutment at Hadgaon. His twenty year old elder son Digamber (deceased) was unemployed. The appellants also reside in this locality. Relations between both the families were strained as Chapter Case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was registered against mother of the deceased on the basis of complaint filed by Umdabi, mother of appellant No. 1. On 9th April 2004, at about 9.00 a.m. Digambar had a qua...

Suresh S/O Laxminarayan Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR308; 2007(6)BomCR229; 2008(1)MhLj200

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Learned counsel Shri Barlinge, for the petitioner seeks to delete respondents Nos. 3 and 4.Leave granted. Necessary amendments in the cause title be made forthwith. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. By this petition the petitioner prays for directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to develop the land admeasuring 40R from Survey No. 275 situated at Kinwat, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded and for a declaration that the reservation in respect of the subject land kept under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 by respondent No. 3 - Municipal Council Kinwat has lapsed.3. In short, the petitioner's contention is that he is owner of land Survey No. 275 admeasuring 1 Hectare 9 R. Out of this land about 69 R land was acquired by the Government and the possession was taken over on 26-5-1990. The petitioner possesses 40R of land out of Survey No. 275. The town planning authority...

Sushila Indubhai Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]303ITR308(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, challenge is to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated January 28, 1993, passed under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for short). By the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax has declined to waive interest/penalty levied against the petitioner/assessee under various provisions of the Act.2. The assessment year involved herein are assessment year 1979-80 and assessment year 1987-88.3. Prior to the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioner was assessed to income-tax regularly. On August 17, 1975, the petitioner went to America. During the financial years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the petitioner visited India for a couple of months. On June 7, 1979, the petitioner once again went to America and returned to India after about 9 years on January 31, 1989.4. On February 24, 1989, the petitioner paid self-assessment tax for the assessment year 1979-80 to the assessment year 1988-89 on the taxable income of Rs. 17,399, Rs. 24,65...

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Xidex Advertising and Marketing

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai I in dropping the penalties under Section 76 & 78 while confirming the demand-along with interest at the appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the activity of advertising agency providing advertising services to various client. They also got registered under Service Tax Rules. It is alleged that the respondents filed returns for half year ending October 2000 to March 2001 on 24.4.2001 and the same was assessed on 24.5.2001.There after they filed revised return for the said period on 25.5.2001, but after the stipulated period disclosing the correct value of taxable services and paid differential service tax of Rs. 1,56,150/- along with interest of Rs. 7331/- vide TR-6 challan dated 25.5.2001. Thus they contravened the provisions of law attracting the penalty under Section 76 & 78 of C...

S.S. Pharma Chem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and pharmaceutical products for which they claimed exemption under Notification 8/95 dated 9.2.95 and 1/93 dated 28.2.93. In the classification list filed on 15.5.95 they claimed full exemption for their product Diethyl Carbamazine under Notification No. 8/95 and there is no dispute on that. Similarly in respect of Sl. Nos. 2 to 11, the appellants have claimed effective rate 10% being "Bulk Drugs" vide Notification No. 8/95 dated 9.2.95. In respect of Sl. No. 12 to 16 which are not bulk drugs, they claimed exemption under Notification 1/93 dated 28.2.93 which is applicable to small scale units. They were issued a show cause notice stating that since they had not claimed benefit of Notification 1/93 in respect of products at Sl. 2 to 11, it is to be held that they had not opted for benefit under Notification 1/93 and therefore they cannot be allowed the concessional rate of duty in view of proviso to para 4 of Notification ...

Mafatlal Securities Ltd. Vs. J.C.i.T., Spl. Rg. 32

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) VII Mumbai, dated 30.11.2000 for the assessment year 1996-97.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the records and other applicable legal position.3. Ground No. 3 was not pressed, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.4. In Ground No. 1 & 2, the assesses is nggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirminy the action of Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Section 73 and holding that loss in trading of shares was a speculation loss.5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee company filed its return of income showing loss at Rs. 43,26,691/-. The composition of income comprises of the following: The Assessing Officer noted that assessee was engaged in the business of investment and trading in shares and securities, hence, asked the assessee to explain/why explanation to Section 73 of the Act was not applicable. The Assessing Officer also required the assesse...

J.L. Morrison India Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR358; 2007(5)BomCR654; (2007)109BOMLR1731; [2007(115)FLR761]; (2008)ILLJ775Bom; 2007(6)MhLj393

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Admit. Shri K.R. Belosey waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, heard forthwith.2. The short point for consideration which arises in the matter is whether the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' can entertain the appeal beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the order.3. Some of the workmen of the appellant filed applications before the controlling authority claiming difference in the amount of gratuity paid and the one claimed as payable to them. The said applications were dismissed by the controlling authority which was sought to be challenged by way of an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and the workmen approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 742 of 2002. The High Court set aside the order of the controlling authority and the Appellate Authority and directed the controlling authority to reconsider the matter on merits, allowing the parties ...

Shrimati Tejbai Tejshi Dedhia and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India, a Bo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1799; 2007(5)MhLj869

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 10th February, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 297 of 1976 whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of respondent No. 1 against the appellants herein in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b), (b)(ii) and (c) with costs. The judgment also requires the premises in occupation of the Court Receiver to be handed over to the Respondent-Bank in pursuance of a decree. The reliefs granted under the said decree include declaration that the Agreement dated 3rd May, 1973 Exhibit 'A' to the plaint to be valid and subsisting, direction to the appellants to hand over possession of the premises mentioned in Clause 6(i) of the said Agreement and to do all such things as may be necessary and to execute all such deeds, writings and papers as may be necessary to effectively carry out the said Agreement and further to pay to the respondent No. 1 Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of the suit till possession of the premi...

Union of India (Uoi), Through Dy. Salt Commissioner, Vs. Mohammed Masu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR156

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard at length the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records as well as written submissions. We have also gone through the various statutory provisions referred to in the course of arguments as also all the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates in their oral as well as written submissions. 2. The appeal and the cross appeal arise from the award dated 23rd June, 1993 passed by the Reference Court of Raigad at Alibag in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986 which is a common award by which the Reference Court has disposed of 79 land acquisition reference cases. The appellants in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 are the respondents in First Appeal No. 741 of 1995 and are hereinafter called as 'the Government', and the appellants in First Appeal No. 741 of 1995 are the respondents in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 and are hereinafter called as 'the claimants'.3. The land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein...