Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)10STR397
1. This stay application has been filed by the applicants against the Order-in-Original No 12/MJ (12)/Commr/RGD/MAERSK/07-08 dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raigad.2. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order, held the services rendered by M/s Maersk India Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as MIPL for short) for providing storage of export goods to M/s Maersk Logistic India Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as MLOG for short) is taxable under Section 65(102) of the Finance Act, 1994; he confirmed demand of Service Tax made in the Show Cause Notice to the extent of Rs. 53,66,874/-; ordered MIPL to pay interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay service tax when it was due and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 because the charge of suppression is proved from 1.2.2005.4. The brief facts of the case are that ...
irb Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)304ITR76(Mum.)
1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-VI, Mumbai dated 18.2.2005 for A.Y. 2001-02. 1a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection made by the Assessing Officer of accounting policy in respect of completed contract method for infrastructure project under BOT scheme with Toll rights and thereby further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,32,19,906/- made by the Assessing Officer to the income of the appellant on account of so called profit arise during the previous year from the said infrastructure project. i) The Assessing Officer has erred in treating the BOT contract with toll rights as building contract. ii) No accounting standard has been prescribed by the ICAI or CBDT Under Section 145. iii) The method of accounting adopted by the Assessing Officer taking toll collection and allowing deduction for amortisation of the value of cost of construction suffers from serious defects in...
The Superintendent Central Excise, Akola Range Vs. Shri Suresh Mulchan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR361; 2008CriLJ4132; 2009(237)ELT249(Bom)
K.J. Rohee, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 30.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 170/2001 discharging the accused.2. It seems that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Amravati Division, Amravati, filed a complaint against the accused alleging charges under Sections 29 r/w 22(c) and 22 of the N.D.P.S., 1985; Section 22 r/w 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Sections 21, 23, 25, 26 and 27A r/w 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. According to the complainant, it was the accused who provided funds and material for manufacturing mandrax tablets at Amravati and Akola. In the search conducted on 23/24th November, 1995 at Amravati and 24th November, 1995 at Akola, raw materials for manufacturing mandrax tablets, machineries, mandrax tablets and cash of lakhs of rupees was recovered. Two charge sheets were filed against 10 accused perso...
Niba India and anr. Vs. Smt. Arti Handa, Assistant Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)121; [2008]300ITR283(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners by the present petition have challenged the notices issued tinder Section 148 for reopening of assessment for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. The notices are dt. 30th March, 1989. The reasons for reassessment have been annexed to the reply filed by the respondents as on annexures to the affidavit of Mr. Y.S. Sonawane. If is recorded therein that the search operations were carried out in the concerns belonging to the petitioner and the group companies and the employees were examined. Their statements were also recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. From the said statement it is set out that it was noticed that the brass scrap and plastic powder scarp generated in the manufacturing process is of significant quantity and value. On the basis of the observations made from the manufacturing process carried out by the search party and from the statements of directors/partners, who were examined, it was noticed that the brass scrap is about 45 per cent...
Lalita Anil Shete and anr. Vs. Padmavati Mahila Nagari Sahakari Pat Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR583; 2008(2)BomCR586; 2008(3)MhLj476
Mhase S.B., J.1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith.2. The order passed in Appeal from Order No. 926 of 2006 decided by the Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court (Mumbai) Bench, Pune at Pune (in short 'Cooperative Appellate Court') is under challenge. So also the order dated 16th August 2007 passed in Review Application No. 3 of 2007 is under challenge.3. The dispute bearing C.C. No. 238 of 2003 was filed by the respondent - society against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of loan which was advanced to the petitioner. The said dispute was decided ex parte on 4th March 2004. Thereafter the petitioners have filed application for setting aside the ex parte award passed in the said dispute.4. There was delay in filing the said application, therefore a delay condonation application was also filed. The Co-operative Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2004 and condoned the delay subject to payment of Rs. 750/-. Accordingly a cost of Rs. 750/- was paid. Thereafter ...
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Wealth Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: [2008]301ITR325(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in two wealth-tax appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the assessment year 2002-03. The first question framed for consideration reads as under:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's was justified in holding that the flats in the impugned premises allotted to the appellant's employees does not fall within the four corners of the exception embedded in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Act2. Considering the terminology used in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act in the case of Bennett Coleman, we have held that the provision applies not only to a director but other categories mentioned therein and that includes employee as also officer. There is, therefore, no merit in the first question which is accordingly dismissed.3. In so far as ...
Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)10STR382
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 1/M-I/2007, dated 27-2-2007, vide which the adjudicating authority has confirmed demand of Rs. 78,50,491/- including education cess and appropriated the amount deposited by the appellant, imposed penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also ordered for demand of interest as applicable under the provision of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant i.e. Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd. (MSPL) manufactured shoes in their factory premises and cleared the same on payment of duty to their own retail outlets. For manufacture of such goods, the said MSPL availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs and also on the input services.The scrutiny of the records filed by the appellant revealed that they had availed Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on input services like retail agents commis...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abg Heavy Industries Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)369
1. The present appeal was heard by the Bombay Bench of Tribunal on 8th Sept., 2006. The assessee moved a miscellaneous application and vide order dt. 22nd Nov., 2006 the grounds Nos. 1 to 4 had been recalled by the Tribunal to be decided de novo.2. The only issue to be decided by us is relevant to the ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee for both the assessment years i.e., asst.yrs. 1997- 98 and 1998-99, which are as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned C1T(A) has erred in: 1. directing the AO to deduct a sum of Rs 9,72,01,578 being deduction under Section 80-IA by holding that the assessee has carried on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructural facility while calculating the book profits under Section 115JA of the Act; 2. ignoring the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of Shri Saket Agarwal, managing director, wherein he admitted that no operation of infrastructural facility was carried on by the as...
Anil S/O Chotulal Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj707
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both appeals referred to above are being disposed of together in as much as they arise out of same judgement. By the impugned judgement, both the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) month. In addition, appellant Dhanraj @ Dhananjay is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.2. The appellants were tried before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2006. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that prosecutrix is a young girl, who hails from U.S.A. and had come to Aurangabad for her education under International Youth Exchange Progr...
Sau. Jayashree W/O Baliram Chavhan Vs. Baliram S/O Tulshiram Chavhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008BomCR(Cri)942
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant, who has been aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, whereby the respondent husband's Criminal Revision No. 53/2006 was allowed , has preferred this application seeking quashing of that order.2. Brief facts leading to this application can be stated thus. The applicant who is wife of the respondent had filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 74/2003 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daryapur. When the matter was pending; there was amicable settlement between the parties and the applicant went to cohabit with the respondent. Pursis to that effect was filed on 9.3.2005. Matter remained pending, obviously, waiting for favourable out come. Thereafter, respondent's counsel filed another pursis on 1.10.2005 by which it was intimated to the court that the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »