Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Vishalkumar Nemichand Kakad Vs. Shankar Mahadeo Kubde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR513

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original plaintiff challenges dismissal of his Special Civil Suit 184/1991 for specific performance by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nagpur on 22/6/1992. Trial Court found that plaintiff could not prove that the present respondent/original defendant avoided to execute sale deed in his favour and also found him not entitled to alternate relief of refund of Rs. 93,650/- (Rs. Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only.) with interest at 18%. It concluded that time was essence of contract and defendant established that plaintiff failed to get sale deed executed in his favour within stipulated period and hence the agreement stood cancelled and earnest amount stood forfeited.2. Plaintiff stated that he and defendant entered into an agreement on 24/2/1988 for purchase and sale of six acres of land out of total land admeasuring 11.44 acres (4.03 Hectors) bearing Khasra No. 555, situated at Mouza ...

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Force Motors Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR526]; (2008)3LLJ81Bom; 2008(4)MhLj120

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Order dated 4th October, 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court.2. The respondent filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1948') challenging an order dated 28th September, 1983 passed by the appellant in exercise of powers under Section 45A of the said Act of 1948 by which a demand of Rs. 2,20,249.60 was made by the appellant towards the contribution. The said application under Section 75 was dismissed on 29th January, 1990. An Appeal preferred against the said order by the respondent was dismissed by this Court. The respondent therefore paid the amount of Rs. 2,20,250/-. By an order dated 14th August, 2006, the appellant made a demand of Rs. 5,93,427/- being the interest payable on the sum of Rs. 2,20,249.60. Another applica...

Anil Motilal Nimbhore Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR462; 2008(4)MhLj824

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad on 5-11-2004 (Exh.Y). By the impugned judgment, learned Members of MAT were pleased to dismiss Original Application Nos. 937/2004; 946/2004 and 964/2004. Present petitioner was a petitioner in Original Application No. 937/2004. By seeking quashment of the impugned judgment, petitioner also seeks directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to provide relaxation of upper age limit for in-service candidates, during the process of filling up the posts, which were likely to be advertised on 24-10-2007 (writ petition is filed on 20-10-2007) i.e. Maharashtra Engineering Services Examination 2007 (refer schedule of examinations published by MPSC on 16-7-2007 - Exhibit X).In fact, petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 7356/2004 challenging this very judgment, by which prayer for relaxation of upper age limit for in-service candidates was turned do...

Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC79

1. The brief facts of the case that the appellant's are engaged in the manufacture of BSE poles which were exempted from duly by notification No. 74/93 dated 28.2.93. The appellants however, continued to pay duty and for the first time represented to the Asst. Commissioner vide their letter dated 12.2.2003 that the goods were exempted and they were not required to pay duty. They ultimately filed a refund claim on 30.4.2004 claiming refund in respect of duty paid by them for the period from Feb 2002 to June 2003. The claim was sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner partly for the period August 2002 to June 2003 as there was no payment of duty in July 2003 and he rejected the claim for the period February 2002 to July 2002 on the ground of time bar. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Mr. P.V. Kulkarni, Store Assistant of the appellant submits that the refund should have been sanctioned to them for 12 months but has been limited to 11 months. Therefore, the duty paid in...

3s Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(129)ECC41

1. The issue in the present appeal is the classification of 'Barcode Printers (Thermal Label Printers)' - whether under Customs Tariff Heading 8471.60 as inputs or output units of automatic data processing machines - as claimed by the importers or under CTH 8443.59 as "printing machinery other than Ink Jet Printing machines" as held by the Revenue.2. We have heard both sides. The manual of the imported goods clearly brings out that the goods are printers connected to a computer. As per Note 5D to Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, printers, and key boards which satisfy the conditions of paragraphs 5B(b) and 5B(c) are in all cases to be classified as units of heading 84.71. Note 5B states that automatic data processing machines may be in the form of systems consisting of variable number of separate units. Subject to paragraph (E) below, a unit is to be regarded as being a part of a complete system if it meets all of the following conditions: (a) It is of a kind solely or principally...

Commissioner of C.Ex. Vs. Indian Oil Tanking Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)10STR11

1. This Larger Bench was constituted to resolve the conflict between the decisions of the Tribunal. In CCE v. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's order wherein it was held that a work contract cannot be vivisected and part of it subjected to Service tax and judgment of the Tribunal in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE following the Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. decision, on the one hand, and the decision in CCE, Raipur v. BSBK P. Ltd. 2007 (5) S.T.R. 124, wherein it was held by the Tribunal in the case of similar contracts that the turnkey project contract was divisible and that the services rendered by the assesses/respondents were covered under the category of consulting engineer and hence liable to service tax.We note that by order dated 30-11-2007, in SLP 871/2007 [2008 (9) S.T.R. J29 (S.C.)], the Apex Court has set aside the Tribunal's order in the case of BSBK (P) Ltd. cited supra on the ground that it was an ex parte order and remanded the case to th...

Commissioner of C.E. Vs. R.K. Swamy B.B.D.O. Advertising

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai who has held that the assessees were liable to be charged interest on delayed payment only for the period from April to September, 1999 when there was delay in payment of Service tax and upheld interest only for that period, setting aside the liability to interest for the period January, 1999 to March, 1999 which was covered by the stay order passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 3-2-99 in Writ Petition No. 1545/99.2. We have hard the ld. JDR and perused the records - none appears for the respondents in spite of notice. The payment of Service tax was stayed on 3-2-1999 and vacated on 20-12-2000. Service tax for the period from January, 1999 to March, 1999 was covered by the stay, but even before the stay was vacated service tax for this period was paid - date of payment was 18-1-2000. The nonpayment of service tax was not due to delay on the part of the assessee but only due t...

Sumit Bhatttacharya Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)113CTR(Mum.)633

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 15th Dec, 2004 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for the asst. yr. 1998-99. The assessee has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A)-Mumbai XVI ["CIT(A)"] erred in treating the sum. Of Rs. 4,79,13,851, being amount received on redemption of 'Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) by the appellant during the financial year 1997-98 as taxable perquisites under the head 'Salaries'. (i) Since the SARs were granted to the appellant by Procter & Gamble Inc USA ("parent company - grantor of SARs") on behalf of and by virtue of his being incumbent of Procter & Gamble India ("employer"), the same were taxable as perquisites, even though there was no employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the grantor of the SARs. (ii) The grant of SARs and its redemp...

Sumit Bhattacharya Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1 This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 15th December 2004 passed by the (sic)(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, (sic) [hereinafter refered to as 'the Act'] for the assessment year 1998-99.The assessee has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals)- Mumbai XVI ["CIT(A)"] erred in treating the sum of Rs. 4,79,13,851, being the amount received on redemption of 'Stock Appreciation Rights [SARs] by the appellant during the financial year 1997-98 as taxable perquisites under the head 'Salaries'. i. Since the SARs were granted to the appellant by Procter & Gamble Inc USA ("parent company - grantor of SARs") on behalf of and by virtue of his being incumbent of Procter & Gamble India ("employer"), the same were taxable as perquisites, even though there was no employer-employee relationship between the appellant and the grantor o...

Tata Infomedia Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. All these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The only issue arising in the appeals of the assessee relates to the eligibility of deduction Under Section 80Q of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act). Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee was engaged in the business of printing and publication of yellow pages directory. It claimed deduction Under Section 80Q in respect of profits derived from such business. The claim of the assessee was denied by the AO on various grounds. Firstly, it was held by him that Tata Yellow pages directory cannot be said to be book for the reasons given in para 2.2 of his order which is extracted below: 2.2 The assessee's contention have been carefully considered. No doubt, the definition of 'book' is very wide but the 'Yellow pages' will within the definition of 'other Publication' of a similar nature by whatever name called as provided in Section 80-Q on which deduction is not avai...