Mumbai Court February 2010 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Malllinath Sharnayya Swami

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]323ITR562(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit.3. The issue involved in this appeal against the decision of the ITAT dated 4th April, 2008 is whether the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for valid and justifiable reasons.3. The facts in brief are that a search and seizure action was conducted on 27th August, 2002. A block return was filed declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 12.01 lakhs and tax payable was mentioned as Rs. 7.56 lakhs. No payment of tax was made. An order was passed under Section 158BC(c) determining undisclosed income of Rs. 91.23 lakhs. In appeal, the order was modified and the undisclosed income was arrived at Rs. 12,60,286/-.4. Sub-section (2) of Section 158BFA of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under Chapter XIV B, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax levia...

The State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O. Vs. Sharad Rambhau Khande and ...

Court: Mumbai

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Satara on 18.8.2008 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2008.2. The accused are the son and father. They have beencharged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The wife of accused No. 1 (Respondent No. 1 herein) was found to have been drowned in a well in the village where they lived. Upon the complaint filed by her father, the Respondents came to be charged for having committed offence under the aforesaid sections. It has been the case of the prosecution that the deceased one Aruna, who was the wife of Respondent No. 1, and the daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 2 herein, got married on 18.7.2006. She died upon drowning on 7.9.2007 within about 14 months of her marriage. Her death was unnatural and was caused by the cruelty and harassment to her by the Responde...

Suresh S/O Narayan Dakhore Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Polic ...

Court: Mumbai

P.D. Kode, J.1. By present appeal, appellant had thrown challenge to judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 120/2002 convicting him for commission of murder of one Laxman Ramkrushna Naik and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.2. The said trial has arisen out of charge sheet submitted by Jaulka Police Station for commission of such offence against the appellant as a result of investigation of F.I.R. No. 35/2002 Exh.13 on 18.7.2002 registered by PSI S.G. Pawar of Jaulka Police Station regarding murder of deceased committed in night in between 16.7.2002 up till 18.7.2002 on the basis of oral report Exh.12 lodged by elder brother of deceased namely Eknath Ramkrushna Naik, PW1.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the aforesaid prosecution as revealed from the record are as under:a) PW1 Eknath, deceased Laxman and appe...

Sahednnisa D/O BakruddIn and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Joh ...

Court: Mumbai

P.R. Borkar, J.1. Petitioners challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge1, Aurangabad dismissing Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2009 filed by present petitioners against the order dated 1.1.2009 passed by the learned 6th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad below Exhibit 1 in R.C.C. No. 1475 of 2008, thereby issuing process against present petitioners.2. Some of the facts giving rise to this writ petition are undisputed at this stage. Petitioner No. 1 Sahednnisa is daughter of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and petitioner Nos. 4 to 8 are relatives of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. When Petitioner No. 1 Sahednnisa was studying in final year of B.H.M.S., on 27.10.2006, she married Respondent No. 2 John Paul Antony alias Jann Mohd. However, they could not carry on together. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2007 for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. In said writ petition, present Petitioner No. 1 Sahednnisa appeared before...

Sambhaji Shripati Bankar (Since Deceased by L.Rs. Babai Sambhaji Banka ...

Court: Mumbai

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn judgement and order rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. 4/1989, confirming the judgement and order rendered by SubDivisional Officer, Ahmednagar in T.N.C. Appeal No. 4/1988.2. Original petitioners were real brothers interse. Their father, namely, Shripati Kanhu Bankar was the original tenant of two (2) parcels of lands viz. Survey No. 125, admeasuring 11 hectares 89 Ares and Survey No. 124B, admeasuring 00 Hectares 24 Ares, situated at village Walunj under Ahmednagar district. The deceased respondent No. 1 was original owner of the above referred lands. In the year 1959, Shripati Kanhu Bankar had filed proceedings for exercising right to purchase the lands in question. The proceedings were terminated against him for the reason that he was then in possession of land more than the permissible limits under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1961 (for s...

Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat Vs. Clairant Chemicals (i) Ltd. (Earlier K ...

Court: Mumbai

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court rejecting the Revision Application filed by him against the order of the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 27 of 2009 rejecting his application for interim reliefs. In the Complaint, the Petitioner had sought various reliefs. Ms. Jane Cox, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, restricted the Petitioner's case to allowing him to be represented by a legal practitioner or one Arjun Singh Rajput, a workman. In the Complaint, the Petitioner filed an application for interim reliefs under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) to restrain the Respondents, inter alia, from proceeding with the enquiry against him, without providing him the assistance of a legal practitioner or the said workman. The Labour Court rejected this interim application. The Petitioner filed the said Revision Applic...

The Commissioner of Income Tax-24 Vs. Knr Patel (Jv)

Court: Mumbai

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit.2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the ITAT on 27th February, 2009 pertaining to assessment years 2003-04. By the order of the Tribunal, proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been set aside.3. The Revenue has formulated the following questions of law in an appeal under Section 260A:a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, without discussing the facts of the case and the clauses of the agreement between NHAI and the assessee ?b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in ignoring relevant facts and findings in the order under appeal ?c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in allowing the deduction Under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Vs. Minister for Urban Development, S ...

Court: Mumbai

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. In the Writ Petition No. 2934/1999, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (the Corporation in brief), seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 29.4.1998 passed by the minister of State for Urban Department, directing the petitioner to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of the reservation clamped on the Final Plot No. 286, Town Planning Scheme IV for Mahim Division.2. To state in brief, according to the Corporation, on 25.6.1951, there was a declaration of intention to formulate Draft Town Planning Scheme IV for Mahim Division by the Corporation as Local Authority. The formal sanction to the Draft of the Scheme was accorded on 3.1.1955. One Mr. G.J. Desai was appointed as an Arbitrator to pass an award for granting the final plot to as well as for fixation of the compensation to be paid to the parties, whose land would vest in the Local Authority. On 20.5.1963, the notification was issued declaring the award passed by the Arbitrator. On 15.8....

Shree Ambika Trading Corporation Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for rival parties.2. The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai vide its order dated 21.06.2002 for the assessment year 1992-1993, in exercise of powers under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'BST Act, 1959) has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the provisions in Section 55 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner levying for the first time the penalty under Section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 36(3)(d) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was passed in the second appeal in exercise of the powers under Section 55 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of Section 36(3)(c) of the Bombay Sa...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Earnest Exports Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)230CTR(Bom)527,[2010]323ITR577(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit.2. In exercise of its power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the ITAT has by its order dated 15th January, 2007 recalled its earlier order dated 31st August, 2006 and set aside an order passed by the CIT under Section 263. The substantial question of law which arises before the Court, in this appeal filed by the Revenue, is whether in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order falls within the parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Act.3. During the course of the assessment proceedings pertaining to assessment year 2000-01, the assessee made a claim of deduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 25th March, 2003 computed the gross total income of the assessee at Rs. 32.19 crores, allowed a deduction under Section 80HHC in the amount of Rs. 32.17 crores and computed the taxable income at Rs. 1.25 lakhs. On 22nd March, 2005, the CIT exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 on the ground th...