Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Kirit K. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by one Shri. Kirit K. Mehta, Managing Director of Shiv Plastics P. Ltd against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-.2. The case of the appellant is that he was employed as clerk cum Manager with M/s. Himar Fabrics and Pkg (P) Ltd. controlled and managed by Barot family. M/s. Shiv Plastics Pvt. Ltd. was established by the same family. Since M/s. Shiv Plastics (P) Ltd. was working on very small scale and since Mr. Mehta had experience in the line of manufacture of H.D.P.E / PP bags and sacks, he was asked to look after production of M/s. Shiv Plastics (P) Ltd. He was appointed as Executive Director without any share holdings and without any share in their profits and also was without any salary. It is submitted that he was receiving very small sum as fees for attending Director's Meeting. He further submits that he left the services of M/s. Himar Fabrics and Pkg. (P) Ltd. from 11.07.96 and since then he is unemployed. He ...

Huf of H.H. Late Sir J.M. ScIndia Vs. Acit, Range - 18(2)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are by the assessee and Revenue and pertain to Assessment Year 1997-98.2. The only objection by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer that the auction sale of its plot of land at Aundh had given rise to capital gain exigible to tax. Assessee filed the return on 27/06/1997 declaring income at Rs. 7,98,51,710/-. Assessment was completed under Section 143(l)(a) on 19/02/1998 accepting the returned income. Subsequently assessee filed a revised return on 17/12/1997 declaring income at Rs. 7,90,70,840/-.The reason for the revised return is recorded vide para 1 of the assessment order which reads as under: In order to return the correct amount of interest on Bank Fixed Deposits. In this case it must be noted that State Bank, of India -Pune Branch with which an amount of Rs. 92,500,135/- has been placed as fixed deposit for 117 days has not deducted, any taxed, at source as laid down in Section 194A. Whereas at the ti...

Ciba India (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)945

1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on following grounds: (i) The Commissioner (Appeals)-IX, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner (Appeals)') erred in upholding the disallowance of expenditure on scientific research of Rs. 96,99,624 claimed under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iI) The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the assessing officer to recompute the interest under Section 234B on giving effect to the appellate order.2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the order of the authorities below and documents placed on record.3. With regard to ground. No. 1, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(v) a sum of Rs. 96,99,624. The assessee has stated that it is engaged in 'research business' and investment, in joint ventures. The Principal objective of the company is engaging in specialised research activities and to enter into joint...

Smt. Sulochana L. Punjabi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Mum.)402

1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds which are as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment made by the AO under Section 158BD and consequently confirming addition of Rs. 1,68,75,500. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that a block assessment under Section 158BD can be made on the legal heirs of the deceased person. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that on the date of search, Mr. L.T. Punjabi was not alive and legal heirs were not aware and responsible for any undisclosed income of deceased. 3.(a) The learned CIT(A) erred in not producing before the appellant the satisfaction note, if any, recorded by the AO to make an assessment under Section 158BD. (b) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that satisfaction is not necessary to be recorded in writing. (c) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering that satisfaction note, if any, pertained only of an amount of Rs. 25...

Development Corporation of Konkan Limited, a Company Registered Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR381; [2007(115)FLR574]

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner Corporation is a under the Companies Act, 1956. Corporation is to promote growth and industries in Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri The petitioner Corporation is an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra, with 100% share holding.2. In or about 1979 the petitioners Company registered object of the establishment of and Sindhudurg. established a bull farm to produce pedigree bulls. A Biotic Center was established to manufactures frozen semen doses which were sent to Konkan and other areas for breeding purposes. A nitrogen plant was set up at the center for production of liquid nitrogen which was utilized for preservation of frozen semen at various centers in Konkan areas.3. After the transfer of one Parab, the plant was operated by J.U. Singh and three other helpers. 4. The respondent was employed as helper. The respondent was appointed as plant operator on probation for a period of one-year from 16.07.1980. 5. The respondent was confirmed by virtue of of...

Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd., an Incorporated Company Vs. Shri M.N. Bashy ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2008)BC98

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is Complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Act, for short) by Order dated 28-4-2005 of the learned J.M.F.C., Mapusa.2. The Complainant is a Finance Company and the accused is an architect by profession. The complaint was filed with the allegation that on 7-8-1997 the accused was given a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-repayable with interest at the rate of 24% per year on or before 7-8-1999 and in repayment of the said loan the accused had issued a cheque dated 25-4-2001 for Rs. 4,17,274/-and the said cheque was presented on 8-9-2001 for encashment but was returned dishonoured by intimation dated 10-9-2001 from Centurion Bank Ltd., Panaji, whereupon the Complainant sent the statutory notice dated 17-9-2001 which the accused received on 19-9-2001 but did not comply with the same. The complaint was filed on 12-10-2001. 3. The case of the accused, as can be seen from his statement recorded under Secti...

Shree Hemant Pavel Gracias S/O Bernardo Gracias Vs. Shree Socorro Sant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj505

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a Complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Act, for short) by Judgment dated 3-5-2006 of the learned J.M.F.C., Canacona. 2. The Complainant and the accused were known to each other from student days and both are contractors.3. The case of the Complainant is that he had given a friendly loan to the accused in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and towards discharge of his liability of repayment of the said loan, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 007187 dated 25-8-2005 drawn on Canacona Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. but when the said cheque was presented by him for encashment with the Citizen Cooperative Bank Ltd. the same was returned with memorandum of the same date with endorsement that the funds were insufficient. The Complainant therefore sent a legal notice dated 9-9-2005 calling upon the accused to pay the amount due on the said cheque with interest at the rate of 18% per...

Sharadchandra S/O Narayanrao Padgilwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR194; 2007(6)BomCR552; 2007(6)MhLj431

A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2-5-1990 passed by Additional District Judge. Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No. 2/1984.2. The appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were co-owners of property bearing Survey No. 134 admeasuring 114345 sq. ft. situated within the municipal limits of Digras, District Yavatmal. State of Maharashtra published Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 2-7-1981 for acquisition of the said land for construction of Tahsil Office, Digras. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23-7-1982. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant claimed compensation @ Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per sq, ft. The possession of the land was taken by the Government on 29-10-1982. On 29-8-1983 the Land Acquisition Officer passed award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.54 sq. ft. per square, Being aggrieved, the appellant sought r...

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR537; (2007)6BOMLR537; 2007(6)MhLj745

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Associate Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 to 8.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14th August, 2007 passed by the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, exercising the powers of the State Government, bifurcating the Akkalkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee into two market committees, namely Akkalkot Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short 'Akkalkot Committee') and Dudhani Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short 'Dudhani Committee').3. Mr. Godbole for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of bifurcation was bad on four counts. He firstly submitted that under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), a market committee cannot be divided into two or more market committees unless the financial viability of the new market committees was considered. He submitted t...

Prakash S/O Rupchand Gangarde Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas258(Bom); 2008(2)MhLj38; [2008]87SCL260(Bom)

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate, for the applicant, Mr. K.S. Dhote, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 State and Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.2. By this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1790/2002 filed by respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Telhara, challenges the order by which his application for discharge was rejected, and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, by which he rejected his Criminal Revision to challenge the said order.3. Respondent No. 2 Complainant has filed the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act against the applicant/accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1790/2002 before J.M.F.C, Telhara. It had sought the eviction of the accused/applicant inasmuch as he was not in the service of the complainant, as allotment of accommodation was a condit...