Mumbai Court January 2009 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.
Snowcem India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)594; [2009]313ITR170(Bom); [2009]178TAXMAN478(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dt. 13th Jan., 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) was dismissed.2. Three questions had been framed. In our opinion, if read together, they raise the same question and accordingly the appeal is admitted on the following question:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest under Sections 234B and 234C was leviable in case of computation of income under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act?3. It was the submission on behalf of the assessee that in a case of computation of income under the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act the provisions of Sections 234B and 234C are not leviable (sic.-applicable). In the instant case the appellant had shown a book profit of Rs. 6,31,77,987 as against the computed income of Rs. 45,16,690. As the assessee had paid short advance tax interest was charged unde...
Tancom Electronics Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR840
Deshmukh D.K., J.1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 26th November, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1998. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this appeal are that the respondent - Union had filed the petition challenging the order dated 7th June, 1996 passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed by the Union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971. It was a case of the complainant - Union that in the year 1995 the respondent No. 1- present appellants engaged about 40 employees to work in Seepz Zone. In February 1995, the petitioner - Union informed the respondents that 37 out of 40 employees employed by them have enrolled themselves as members of the petitioner - Union. As the present appellants were not paying correct wages to the members of the petitioner - Union and were flouting the provisions of various labour statutes, therefo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›