Mumbai Court May 2008 Judgments

Mahindra Holdings and Finance Vs. Dcit and Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. As there was difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Bench, the hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has nominated me to express my opinion on the following point of difference: Whether provisions of Section 67A of the I.T. Act, 1961 can be invoked for computing total income of the assessee, who is a company, is a member of association of persons or body of individual, wherein the shares of the members are determinate and known? 2. The facts relevant to the question mentioned above, arc in short compass. The assessee was a member of an Association of Persons (AOP) namely, India Auto Ancillary Trust (IAAT). The said AOP declared loss for the year under consideration and the share of loss in the hands of the assessee was computed at Rs. 12,89,911/- being 7.69% of the total loss since the stake of the assessee in the AOP was 7.69%. The assessee claimed the set off for the above share of loss against the income computed under other heads. Such claim was m...

Mrs. Mudra G. Nanavati Vs. the Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The assessee and revenue are in cross appeals against the order of ld. CIT(A) Cen VII, dated 26/11/03 passed for the block period starting from 1/4/90 and ending on 24/8/2000.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset pointed out that in Ground No. 1 assessee has pleaded that notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued within 12-months from the date assessee has filed the return. Therefore, as per the proviso appended to Section 143(2) the A O is precluded to pass the impugned order under Section 158BC of the A O. The assessment order deserves to be declared as null and void and not sustainable in law. The Ld. Counsel for the assesses while taking us through the facts submitted that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 24/8/2000. It was concluded on 3/10/2000. A notice under Section 158BC was issued on 1/2/01. This was served upon the assessee on 10/2/01. In response to the notice assessee has field...

The Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Reliance Communication Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.AT(181)Bel/2007 dated 29.3.2007.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents were engaged in providing services under the category Telephone Services, Online Information & Database Access & Retrieval Services, Leased Circuit Service etc. They were registered as a Service Tax assessee and were paying service tax on the taxable value of services provided by them. The respondents filed the refund claim on 23.9.2005 on the ground that they had paid the service tax on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the Recharge Coupon Vouchers (RCVs) for their prepaid services but the recharge vouchers had actually been sold to the distributors at a discounted price from the MRP and some recharge vouchers had also been distributed free of cost to distributors/operators. The claim was filed on the ground that the money value of the discount given on the recharge vouchers and that distributed free had ...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Shree Moti Industries and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom201; 2008(6)BomCR659; 2009(1)MhLj282

V.C. Daga, J.1. The plaintiff- Bank of Baroda ('Bank' for short) has filed this suit against the defendants for the recovery of their outstanding dues with claim for future interest thereon from the date of suit till realisation.The Facts:2. According to the plaint allegations, the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners. Defendant No. 5 is the father of defendant Nos. 2 and 4, who has guaranteed the credit facilities advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1.Plaintiff's Case:3. According to the plaintiff- bank, in the month of April, 1984, the Bank had advanced Cash Credit facility to the defendant No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on its executing necessary loan documents in favour of the plaintiff on 31st March, 1987; such as demand promissory note, undertaking not to allow withdrawals of loan and deposits obtained by it from its customers or relatives; deed of hypothecation of goods; letter of continuing security; letter of part...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Internorman India Fab Filters

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents herein entered into a Technical Collaboration and Licence Agreement with their foreign Collaborator to manufacture and sell "Hydraulic Filters", "Filter Housings" & "Filter Elements" without any technical know-how fees. The compensation for rights and services rendered by the foreign Collaborator was in form of royalty @ 5% on all the national sales and 8% on goods exported out of India.3. The respondents imported components, value of which was sought to be loaded by including the payment on account of royalty on the ground that it is being charged for having given them the right to produce hydraulic filter elements and accessories in India with know-how from the foreign, Collaborator. The adjudicating authority did not load the value on the gr...

income Tax Officer Vs. Issardas V. Talreja

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)117

1. This is an appeal, filed by the Revenue, against the order of the learned CIT(A), Mumbai. dt. 16th Sept., 2003 for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. In this appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 7 lakhs made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act.3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee showed that he had received a gift of Rs. 7 lakhs from one Shri Vishambardas Daryani. The AO required the assessee to explain the same and also recorded his statement under Section 131 of the Act. The assessee filed the confirmatory letter of the donor, xerox copy of the passport of the donor, copy of the deed of gift and copy of the concerned bank to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The AO, based upon the statement of the donee, i.e., assessee inferred that it was not a case of genuine gift particularly when the assessee had himself agreed to offer the same as income. Accordingly, he added the same to the total income of the assessee....

Bakshisingh S/O Sahelsingh Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2420

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both these applications filed Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are being disposed of together. For, they arise out of same set of fact situation. The applicants seek quashing of F.I.R. dated 14.6.2004 and consequent proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 4 at Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, on the basis of which Crime No. 128/2004 is registered against them for offence Under Sections 420, 463, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.2. The Respondent No. 4 (Yeshwant) lodged F.I.R. against the applicants and T.I.L.R., namely, Shri P.N. Zalke, alleging that they prepared false and collusive record purporting to indicate ownership of CTS No. 2671 with applicant Bakshisingh. There is no dispute about the fact that complainant Yeshwant is owner of property bearing CTS No. 2675. The applicant Bakshising owns land which originally bore S. No. 11. According to the complainant, land S. No. 11 was not divided at any point of time. He alleged that Bakshising, in col...

Shri Dilip S/O Jagannath Sarode Vs. the Maharashtra Public Service Com ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR47; (2008)110BOMLR1469

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The petitioners are 3 out of about 2393 candidates who appeared for the examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in the 2000-01 for the posts of Police Sub Inspector (PSI), Sales Tax Inspector (STI) and Assistant Sales-tax Inspector (ASI). The petitioners contend that as they were declared successful in the examinations, they were called for physical test and oral interview, but have not been appointed to the posts for which the examinations were held and have, in fact, been blacklisted and permanently debarred from appearing in all the examinations conducted by the MPSC, under the order of the Deputy Secretary, MPSC dated 24.8.2005. The petitioners have accordingly challenged the said order. 2. A short chronology of events and dates from the notification under which the petitioners had acted until their final blacklisting and the orders in the proceedings impugned by them require to be first enumerated. 3. On 14.7.1999, a notificatio...

Girish Kanaiyalal Munshi Vs. Sudha Girish Munshi and Kirtidev Girish M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom136; 2008(4)BomCR787; (2008)110BOMLR1524

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In view of various conflicting decisions of a number of Single Judges, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has referred the following Question for being answered:Whether a woman litigant who files a petition for grant of Probate of a Will is exempted from payment of Court Fees as per Government Notification dated 1st October,1994 duly amended by an explanatory notification dated 23rd March,20002. The aforesaid Notifications read as under:REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENTMantralaya, Bombay 400032,dated 1st October, 1994.Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.No. STP.1094/CR-859/M-1 - Whereas, the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to promote the welfare of the women;And whereas, the same welfare policy for women inter alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce;And whereas, Section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1959 (Bom.XXXVI of 1959), empowers the State Gov...

Navnath S/O Kashinathappa Biradar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR323; 2008(4)BomCR808; (2008)110BOMLR1717; 2009(1)MhLj227

R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the acquisition of their lands for what is known as 'Sangamwadi Minor Irrigation Project'. The said project when completed will irrigate about 905 hectares of land in the draught prone areas like Ahmedpur, Nilanga, Ausa, Udgir and Chakur of Latur district which have been identified as such for the purposes of the draught prone area programme. The present site wherein the said project is being undertaken has been chosen after carrying out a technical evaluation such as water availability, topography, economic feasibility, the cost of rehabilitation, etc.3. The challenge to the project has had a chequered history inasmuch as Writ Petition No. 3613of 2000 came to be filed in this Court challenging the said project at the threshold. The said writ pet...