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.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)479; [2008]300ITR351(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This petition impugns eight notices all dt. 30th March, 1989 issued by the Dy. CIT and received by the petitioner on 3rd April, 1989: By the impugned notices the Revenue seeks to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the years 1974 to 1981. Though the notices mentioned that there is reason to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax for each of the aforesaid years had escaped assessment, the reasons for such belief were not mentioned in the notices. The principal ground on which this petition has been pressed is that there was no sufficient reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment. It has been contended that the notices were issued for mala fide and extraneous reasons as set out in the petition.2. It appears that after the petition was filed an affidavit in reply to oppose the admission of the petition came to be filed in June, 1989. In this reply, for the first time the reasons for seeking the reopening of assessments were set out.3. In...
Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)671; [2008]304ITR235(Bom)
1. Admit on the questions of law which are reproduced hereinafter. Heard forthwith.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of Tribunal dt. 3rd May, 2001 which disposed of two appeals for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 and 1994-95. This appeal is in respect of the asst. yr. 1994-95. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).3. The appellant has raised the following three questions:1. Whether the words 'having a gross annual salary of less than Rs. 2 lakhs' in Section 2(ea)(i)(l) of the Act should be confined to the subject which immediately precedes it, i.e. to a director who is in whole-time employment or would it also apply to the case of an employee or an officer?2. Whether the flat in a tenant co-partnership society constitutes an 'asset' as defined in Section 2(ea)(i)(l) of the Act given that the right of occupation enjoyed by the appellant by reason of being a member of the tenant co-partnership society cannot be regarded as 'building or land appurtenant thereto'?3. Whether a hous...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jannhavi Investments (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)72; [2008]304ITR276(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard both sides.2. According to the Revenue the questions of law at serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 arise from the basic question as to whether the assessee was entitled to opt for the fair market value of certain shares as on the statutory date i.e. 1st April, 1981, even though the said shares were held as stock-in-trade as on that date.3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of this question are that the respondents acquired certain shares of M/s Bharat Forge Ltd. in the year 1977. On the original holding they received bonus shares in the financial year 1981-82 and additional bonus shares in the financial year 1989-90. All the shares were held as stock-in-trade till 6th Nov., 1987. On the sale of the shares while working out capital gain, assessee computed fair market price as on 1st April, 1981. The AO held that since the assessee was holding the shares as stock-in-trade upto 2nd Nov., 1987 and as the said shares were not capital assets as on 1st April, 1981, the o...
Methodex Systems (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)409; [2008]301ITR27(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. According to the petitioners by an agreement of 28th Nov., 1969 executed with Mrs. Gopibai Gopaldas they took on leave and licence basis Flat No. 54A on the 5th Floor of the building 'Mira-Mar' at Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. One Shri Ravindra Sahai was in the employment of Petitioner No. 2 and he was allowed to occupy the said flat. It is the petitioners case that considering the amendment to the Bombay Rent Act giving protection to licensees they became protected tenants. Petitioner No. 1 from 1995 onwards was paying the rent/compensation of the flat to the landlady. Their employee Ravindra Sahai resigned from the employment on 5th March, 1995. Though the employee was called upon to vacate the flat he chose not to vacate. The petitioners, therefore, filed R.A.E. and E. Suit No. 80/490 of 1976 against Ravindra Sahai in the Court of Small Causes for recovery of possession of the flat along with arrears of compensation from 1st May, 1975 till the date of filing of the sui...
Rajinder Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Regional ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR603]; (2008)IILLJ475Bom
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. It appears that there was a dispute between the parties. The matter was before the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided in favour of the employee. The employer filed a writ petition in this Court, which is pending. During the pendency of that writ petition, it appears that a settlement was arrived at between respondent No. 2 and the petitioners -employees. That settlement is dated July 17, 2006. That settlement contemplates payments being made by respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners. Payments were not being made. Therefore, an application was moved under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). That application has been rejected by that Officer by communication dated September 11,2006 for the reason that as required by the provisions of Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlement has not been sent through the authorise...
Municipal Council Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Shankarlal Sabu (Dr.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR758; 2008(3)MhLj170
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by defendant No. 3-the Municipal Council, since the suit filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff came to be decreed by the first Appellate Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.2. The facts shorn of details are as under:Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the owner of field S. No. 10/1 of village Risod, Distt. Washim. There is a Municipal Council at Risod. The Development Authority prepared a Development Plan for said Municipal area of Risod. Survey No. 10/1 belonging to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 came to be reserved for the weekly market and cattle market by a sanction dated 23-11-1985. On 1-1-1986, the Government issued a Notification reserving the said land for the said purpose and giving out its intention to acquire the said land. In spite of the Notification in respect of the Development Plan, the defendants failed to acquire the said land. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a notice on 5-2-1996 to ...
Merry Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC35
1. The appellant a SSI Unit is engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments which were manufactured under their brand name "Merry" as also under the brand name belonging to M/s. A-La Mode Exports and M/s.Twinkle International. The readymade garments manufactured by them carrying the brand name of A-La Mode Exports and Twinkle International were cleared to the above two brand name owners who are merchant exporters, without payment of duty. M/s. A-La Mode Exports and Twinkle International after receiving the goods from the appellants exported them and as a proof of export they furnished Form-14B prescribed under the Sales Tax Law) and Bills of Lading. Since the appellants have themselves not exported the goods manufactured by them and the goods carried the brand name belonging to A-La Mode Exports and Twinkle International, a show cause notice was issued to them stating that they were required to pay duty in respect of ready made garments carrying brand name of other two persons amo...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Crompton Creaves Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC129
1. Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No Goa/CEX/BBP/110/2006 dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs, Goa. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) against Order-in-Original No DCC Ex (Div I) 13/2006-07 dated 21.6.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central excise, Division I, Panaji, Goa, in which the Deputy Commissioner has disallowed Cenvat Credit of Rs 57,647/- and Education Cess of Rs 1152/- availed on TR6 Challan during the period from 1.1.2005 to 15.6.2005 and ordered recovery of the said amount along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000/-.2. The respondents are the manufacturers of electric fans falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing facilities of Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and on the input services as provided under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credi...
Petine Shipping Inc. of Monrovia Vs. the Minerals and Metals Trading C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR875; 2008(2)ARBLR334(Bom); 2008(3)BomCR210; 2008(3)MhLj512:2009AIRSCW4362
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Appeal is against the impugned judgement/order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 313/1999 whereby, the Appellants (original petitioners) application under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'Act of 1940) for extension of time for making the Award by the Umpire was dismissed on the preliminary objection as raised to the maintainability of the petition in view of the specific provision of Section 31(4) of the Act of 1940. Hence this Appeal. 2. The Appellants are a shipping company incorporated under the laws of Liberia and carry on business at Bombay through their protecting agents M/s.GAC Shipping India Ltd. at Bombay. The Appellants are inter alia owners of a vessel m.v. ANIMAR (the said vessel). The Respondents are a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carry on business at the address mentioned in the cause title. 3. By a Charter Party dated 2nd Ju...
Ghanshyam Mulchand Keshwani and Gurumukh Mulchand Keshwani Vs. State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR428
K.J. Rohee, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of Criminal Case No. 86/1998 against them pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warora for violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s Rajesh Kirana Stores situated at Station Road, Warora, district Chandrapur. On 18.7.1995 at about 11 a.m. Shri S.B. Naragude, the then Food Inspector along with a panch visited M/s Rajesh Kirana Stores. Petitioner No. 1 was present in the shop. Shri Naragude noticed 100 sealed polly packets of Kusum Chilly Powder weighing 50 grams each kept for sale. Shri Naragude purchased 9 sealed polly packets of Kusum Chilly Powder of 50 grams each for test and analysis from the said stock, paid Rs. 22.50 ps. to petitioner No. 1 and obtained cash memo from him. Shri Naragude gave notice under Section 14A of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »