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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.C. Thakur and Bros.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)779; [2009]180TAXMAN348(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Revenue has come in appeal on the following question:(a) The substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal is regarding the correct interpretation of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act and other relevant provisions of the Act and whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) and allowing the depreciation to the assessee @ 50% and 40% respectively for A.Ys.1991-92 and 1996-97 on the value of trucks/dumpers owned by the assessee and further failed to appreciate that the assessee was only a civil contractor and was not engaged in the business of, wisely out asset i.e. trucks/dumpers transportation.2. On behalf of the appellant the learned Counsel submits that considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. Gupta Global Exim (P) Ltd. (2008) 171 Taxman 474 (SC) the correct test which the authorities below had to apply was whether the appellant was in the busi...
Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Bom)409
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appeal was admitted on 1st April, 2004 on the following substantial question of law:Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as an income-tax advance said to have been made by the assessee to Mr. Bhupendra Chedda is based on legal evidence ?2. In the course of search of the premises, following document was seized from the premises of the assessee.The contents of the document reads as under:(1) Mr. Surendra Khandhar) 22nd Jan., 1991(2) Mr. Mahenedra P.J. Shah) In the presence(3) Mr. Bhupen Chheda) of ....On 22nd Jan., 1991, 7.30 p.m. in the case of Surendra N. Khandhar v. Bhupen Chheda it is decided as under:(1) On or before 28th Feb., 1991, (Bhupen Chheda) myself will pay Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) towards the payment of loan out of twenty lakh rupees.(2) Balance amount will be paid by 50 per cent of collection cheques and current account will be operated by Mahendra P. Shah. I hereby agree to deposit all cheques only in United Western Bank, Mandvi Branch. Howeve...
Hashim Huzursab Sayeed Vs. Goribi Hashim Sayeed,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR812
S.S. Shinde, J.1. The present application is filed by the applicant, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st October, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Revision Application No. 126/1999.2. Background facts of the case are as under:The respondents herein filed an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur praying for maintenance for Rs. 500/- for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 400/- for respondent No. 2. It was the case of the respondents before the J.M.F.C. that the applicant herein is the husband and since he has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the application for maintenance is filed.3. The present applicant filed his reply before the J.M.F.C. and resisted the application. It was the contention of the applicant that respondent No. 2 is not the son of the applicant. However, the relations with respondent No. 1 was admitted by the applicant. It was contention of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Polycott Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)328; [2009]138ITR144(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question:(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in directing the AO to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act after the books of account having been closed/made up with the total export turnover ascertained, holding that the reduction in the invoice amount having been approved by the RBI, the original sales price stands modified to this extent and such modified price only should be included as part of export turnover ?2. Before answering the question, it is necessary to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent that if the tax does not exceed Rs. 4 lakhs the appeal ought not to have been filed.3. On the other hand on behalf of the Revenue the learned Counsel relies on the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 dt. 15th May, 2008 [(2008) 217 CTR 1]. Section 268A has been introduced in the IT Act, by Finance Act, 2008. Pursuant to...
Basavraj Sangramappa Thonte Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1360
ORDERS.S. Shinde, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dismissing the appeal No. 32/91 filed by the present applicant.2. Background facts of the present case are as under:The applicant was charge-sheeted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir under Sections 420, 465, 471 along with another accused Deelip Gaikwad.3. It was alleged that the applicant secured admission in polytechnic college at Nasik by securing a false caste certificate showing that he belongs to Lingdhar scheduled category and the respondent No. 2 had helped him in securing the said certificate.4. The present applicant and respondent No. 2 were convicted for the offence stated therein. The applicant filed an appeal No. 32/91 before the Sessions Court, Latur, challenging the conviction. On 21-2-2000 the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Hen...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Saibaba Toddy Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1782
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, in a criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 489 of 1992 whereby respondents came to be acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17, Sections 7(i), 2(ia)(a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17 along with Section 7(i), Section 2(ia)(a) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Indisputably, the complainant - Food Inspector Shri Sudhakar Patil was duly appointed to work as Food Inspector for local area of Parbhani district. The Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Parbhani was appointed as local health authority vide Government Notification published in the Government Gazette on 15th April, 1983. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 1 is a partnership proprietary concern of which the respondent No. 2 is the Managing Partner. T...
ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR76
Daga V.C., J.1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the respondents.2. The basic complaint made in this petition is that the proceeding challenging an assessment under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is pending before the Collector and the Collector is not taking any decision. He is neither deciding stay application nor appeal pending before him.3. Apart from the fact that the matter is kept pending by the Collector, the Revenue Department is proceeding to recover the assessment charges, which are the subject matter of challenge in the appeal.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of recovery cannot be allowed to proceed unless stay application and/or appeal is decided by the Collector.5. The learned A.G.P., appearing for the respondents, submits that the proceeding is pending before the Collector and the Collector is willing to decide the same within a period of six weeks. He further makes a statement that till...
Music Choice India Private Limited Vs. Phonographic Performance Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR609; 2009(2)MhLj651; LC2009(1)329
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Plaintiff is a broadcaster of music inter alia on the television and operating through local operators of Satellite, cable and Internet platform. The Defendant is a Collecting Society constituted under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Act) to perform the statutory duties and public functions essentially under Section 31 of the Act. Section 31 runs thus:31. Compulsory licence in works withheld from public - (1) If at any time during the term of copyright in any Indian work which has been published or performed in public, a complaint is made to the Copyright Board that the owner of copyright in the work -(a) has refused to re-publish or allow the republication of the work or has refused to allow the performance in public of the work, and by reason of such refusal the work is withheld from the public ; or(b) has refused to allow communication to the public by [broadcast], of such work or in the case of a [sound recording] the work recorded in such [soun...
Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs. the State of Goa by Its Chief Secretary and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR737
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner who is a practising advocate and who also claims to be a public spirited citizen, has approached this Court by way of present Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein, on the strength of Constitutional mandate contained in Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India, he questions the authority of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hold the posts of `Parliamentary Secretaries' and enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister and also questions respondent Nos. 5 to 7 appointed to different posts in the State administration, as to how they enjoy the status and rank of Cabinet Minister. He also prays that the orders at Annexures `P2' collectively and `P4' collectively relating to respective group of respondents be revoked and cancelled being violative of the Constitutional mandate.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the recent Assembly Elections which were held in May 2007, resulted in the fractured mandate from the elect...
Miss Deanna J. Jeejeebhoy Vs. Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2009
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)202; [2009]180TAXMAN586(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The two questions of law which have been referred for our opinion under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the deduction on account of debt owed for the purpose of determining the net wealth as claimed by the assessee should be reduced by the investment made in Capital Investment Bonds ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that although the debt owed was incurred in relation to a property which was chargeable to wealth-tax, the full amount of the debt could not be allowed as a full deduction because of the investment made by the assessee in an asset exempt from wealth-tax?2. The facts on the background of which the two questions of law arise are as follows:(a) The three applicants are sisters. Along with their mother each of them owned l/4th share in a building named as 'Sett Minar, situated at Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Bombay. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »