Mumbai Court January 2009 Judgments

The Director of Income Tax (international Taxation) Vs. Ngc Network As ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)86; [2009]313ITR187(Bom)

1. The Revenue has come in appeal on the following question -Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee's contention that when the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT, 'A' Bench, Delhi reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269. 2. Our attention is invited to the following findings recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 12th December, 2007:Thus, in the given case, though assessee is assessable in respect of the income (though of course and it would not be if its quantum appeal is successful), it is not liable to pay advance tax, since tax is deductible by the payer M/s. NTIL, though not actually deducted by it. 3. The submission on behalf of the revenue is that, on failure of the payer to deduct the advance tax, it is the liability of the assessee ...

Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR306; (2009)223CTR(Bom)458; 2009(164)LC313(Bombay); [2009]17STJ1; 2009[13]STR490; [2009]21STT28

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. The petitioners are an ex-servicemen company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners and similar other companies are incorporated pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Defence. The shares of the petitioners are held by war widows and disabled soldiers.4. In the present petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 8-10-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai ('tribunal' for short) in Appeal No. ST/167/08-Mum., wherein the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lacks as a condition for hearing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order in original dated 1-5-2008 passed by...

thermax Limited and anr. Vs. Vishwanath N. Jadhav and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR303; (2009)IIILLJ265Bom; 2009(2)MhLj921

Bobde S.A., J.1. These two petitions are filed by the employer and the workman, respectively, against the order of the Industrial Court refusing to vary the order of the Labour Court and dismissing both the revisions filed by the parties. The Labour Court has held that the workman is guilty of misconduct as enumerated in Clauses 24(a) and (1) of the Model Standing Orders. However, the Labour Court took the view that punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate and, therefore, allowed the workman's complaint partly.2. The workman Vishwanath N. Jadhav was working as a Fitter with the employer, Thermax Limited, Pune. He was charged with insubordination and commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises. The incident which led to the charge is as follows:On 2.3.1984, when the supervisor tried to explain the work to be performed by the workman and what was required, he did not listen to the superior and clearly refused by saying that t...

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Central Government Tribunal-cum-labour Court ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ255Bom; 2009(2)MhLj570

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. In both these petitions, the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal in reference No. I.D.A. No. 28/2000 has been challenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, both these petitions may be disposed by this common judgment.2. To state in brief, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 687/2001 is the Reserve Bank of 1 India and may be referred as employer and respondent No. 2 widow of deceased employee Vinayak Sawarkar and respondent No. 3 is the Reserve Bank Employees Association. The said Association has filed Writ Petition No. 1006/2001. Admitted facts are that Vinayak Savarkar was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India in Cash Department, and while in service he died on June 21, 1987. After his death, his widow Smt. Suvasini Savarkar was appointed as a Clerk cum Cash examiner w.e.f. September, 1987 on compassionate ground. She received the amount of provident fund with interest which was due to her husband. In 1987 when Vinayak Savarkar had died, pension schem...

Vandana Prabhakar Damedhar Vs. Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR888; 2009(2)MhLj483

Bhatia J.H., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final hearing immediately.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.3. To state in brief, admitted facts are that the petitioner was the member of Indian National Congress (I) and as a candidate of that party, she was elected as member of the Municipal Council, Shendurjanaghat. The election for the post of the President of Municipal Council was scheduled to be held on 17/12/2006. Respondent No. 3 was also one of the Municipal Councillor, who was elected as the candidate of Indian National Congress. A meeting was held on 17/12/2006 in which all the new elected members of the Municipal Council from Indian National Congress were present along with some other political leaders of the party from the districts. According to the complaint lodged by respondent No. 3 with the Collector under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member...

Shivaji Hanmantrao Mane Vs. Government of Maharashtra Through Collecto ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR855

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original claimant, whose application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 bearing No. W.C.A. No. 10 of 1985 was dismissed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Judge, Labour Court, Latur on 2.9.1991.2. It is case of the applicant/appellant that respondent No. 2 had undertaken a contract of construction of compound wall of Tehsil Office, Nilanga from respondent Nos. 3 and 1. On the date of accident, i.e. 16.9.1983 the appellant was engaged as a labourer on mixture machine supplied by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2. While working, suddenly pant of the appellant got caught in the machine and the genital organ of the appellant was crushed in the machine, because of which he fell down and became unconscious. Immediately opponent No. 2 and others removed him to the hospital at Nilanga and then he was taken at Government Hospital, at Latur and then admitted as an indoor patient in...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR928; 2009BusLR239(Bom); (2009)221CTR(Bom)660; [2009]177TAXMAN229(Bom)

R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this reference the following two questions of law have been referred by the I.T.A.T. for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that following items were not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act,1961?a) Insurance- Rs. 8,82,300/-b) Freight- Rs. 91,67,940/-c) Export Inspection Agency charges- Rs. 1,31,077/-2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the tribunal was right in holding that the revised rates of depreciation as per the Income Tax Fourth Amendment Rules 1983 inserted w.e.f. 2.4.1983 will not applicable for assessment year 1980-81.2. A third question is also referred to us at the instance of the department which is as follows:3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was justif...

Smt. Shalan W/O. Narayan Dappal and ors. Vs. the Board of Trustees of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR289; 2009(111)BomLR1110

V.C. Daga, J.1. The un-successful Defendants in a suit, suffering from a decree of eviction from the suit premises, are the Petitioners herein.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The factual background of the dispute lies in a narrow compass and it is this:3. The suit had been filed on 16th February, 1978 by the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein against the Original Defendant, being the Predecessors of the Petitioners under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 inter alia; seeking decree for eviction from the suit premises, arrears of compensation and mesne profits.4. The suit was decreed on 2nd December, 1988. The Appeal against the said decree preferred by the Petitioners being Appeal No. 40 of 1989 was dismissed on 22nd February, 1991. This judgment and decree is a subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.5. During the pendency of the suit, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the ...

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vidarbha Region V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom75

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. As per order dated 7-7-2008 the parties were put to notice that petition would be disposed of at the admission stage and the parties were also directed to file brief submissions in support of their contentions, which they have done. However, none appears for respondent No. 3. Heard Mr. Dastane, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sonak, learned Assistant Government. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is Urban Cooperative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short. Societies Act) and is controlled ift respect of certain matters by the Preserve Bank of India, under Section 110-A of the Societies Act and certain provisions of Banking Regulations Act. Respondent No. 3 is a share holder of the petitioner-Bank. He made two applications before the Bank on different dates seeking certain information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Both the applications were rejecte...

M/S. Daya Builders Through Shri Haresh Shah Partner, Goregaon (E), Mum ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. U.B. Wavikar-Advocate for the applicant/org. appellant. Ms. Yogita Bedekar-Advocate h/f.Mr. Shirish Deshpande-Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Haresh Shah-Partner of appellant in person. Respondent in person. Parties have agreed to the consent terms. Taken on record. Hence the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of consent terms. 2. If either of the party commits breach of consent terms, other party shall be at liberty to seek execution of the consent terms. 3. Misc. application stands disposed of. 4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....