Mumbai Court July 2012 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.
Prabhakar S/O Shamrao Hirkane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) The appellant had allegedly killed his wife (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a room situated at Shankarashram Lodge, Main Road, Chandrapur by strangulation. The appellant was married to deceased Smt. Archana on 20th May, 1999. The appellant and the deceased were staying at Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur. The appellant was doing labour work at various sites in Maharashtra as well as at the sites situated outside Maharashtra also. The earnings of the appellant were not sufficient enough to take care of his wife and children. 2. It is the case of prosecution that the deceased had, therefore, accepted the job in a private hospital of Dr. Mala Premchand as a Nurse about 7 to 8 months prior to the date of incident. It appears that the appellant was informed by somebody that his wife had developed extra marital relations with one Satish, who was working as driver of Dr. Mala Premchand. He got this information on telephone when he was at Samb...
Mrs. Shreya W/O Prashant Agale Vs. Prashant S/O Prakash Agale
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2 This miscellaneous civil application is filed seeking transfer of divorce proceedings in Hindu Marriage Petition No.8 of 2011 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad to any competent Court at Aurangabad. 3 Background facts of the case as disclosed in the application are as under: On 1st July, 2009, marriage between the Applicant and Respondent solemnized at Aurangabad. It is the case of the Applicant that, on 19th July, 2009, there was an illegal demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the Respondent to the Applicant and her parents for purchasing or expanding his office at Kalamboli. On failure of payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Respondent and his parents started harassing the Applicant. It is further case of the Applicant that, on denial by the Applicant of any kind of written consent for divorce, the Applicant was thrown out of her matrimonial ...
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer Vs. Gautam S/O. P ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
1. The appeal is to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 11/09/2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chimur in Regular Criminal Case No.316 of 1991 (Old Case No. 329 of 1988) whereby the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were facing trial on the charge that they had formed an unlawful assembly on 15/09/1988, at about 9 p.m. at Mauja Khapri in Chimur Tahsil, Chandrapur District and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, were armed with stick, a deadly weapon; committed house trespass by entering in the house of Bhaurao having made preparation to cause hurt and caused hurt to the complainant Pramila and her family members and voluntarily caused hurt to Pramila and Father Bhaurao with stick. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On or about 15/09/1988, at Khapari, tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur, while Bhaurao Meshram was resting after having din...
The Commissioner of Income Tax â I Vs. Sanjivani (Takli) Ssk Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Respective parties do not dispute that the question sought to be raised in all these Appeals stands concluded by the judgment dated 10.2.2012, in Tax Appeal No. 25 of 2008 -- The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Killari, Tq. Ausa, District Latur, delivered by the Division Bench here at Aurangabad. This question formed issue no. 2 in Tax Appeal 25 of 2008. Two issues, as under, were pressed before this Court in that Tax Appeal:- (1) Whether an amount, for which a provision is made in the books of account by the assessee (a sugar factory), who maintains accounts on the mercantile basis, towards contribution made to a recognised research institute, can be allowed as a deduction under Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the amount is not actually paid in the relevant assessment year? (2) Whether the difference between the market price of sale of sugar and price of the sale of a small quantity of sugar made by the ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Tukaram Dudhakohale
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27th February, 2001 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Wardha in Session Trial No. 26 of 1996 whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The facts in brief stated are as under: - First Informant namely Gajanan Marotrao Gohane, Aged about 27 years, Resident of Village Talodi, reported about the quarrel took place with his uncle on the pretext of sharing of amount in respect of cultivating the land. When the quarrel took place on 25/2/1995 at about 6.00 p.m., the first informant Gajanan came on the spot with his friend Ashok Giri and others. At that time, accused also came on the spot while first informant was talking with his friend near Hanuman Temple in the village Talodi. The accused was armed with Suri (Knife) and he had suddenly assaulted the first in...
The Commissioner of Income Tax â I Vs. Shri Ganesh Sahakari Sakha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. All these Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Revenue are to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself as per earlier orders passed by the Division Benches of this Court. After hearing respective Counsel, we find that following substantial questions of law fall for determination. (A) Whether the dis-allowance of difference between State Advised Price and Statutory Minimum Price paid by assessee Co-operative Societies to sugar cane farmers by the Assessing Officer has been correctly set aside concurrently by the Appellate Authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances of the respective Cases? (B) Whether a Co-operative Society is not an association of persons within Section 40-A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. It has been brought to our notice that in Tax Appeal 3/2008 on 13.01.2011, Tax Appeal 54/2010 on 25.02.2012 followed the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in (2010) 13 SCC 527---Deputy Commissi...
Shri Dattatray Chintamani Nivandkar Vs. M/S. Bhaskar Construction, Pro ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) None is present for the appellant and the respondent, even at 2.10 p.m. On last date, the appellant and his counsel were absent. Respondents counsel was present. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default. No order as to costs....
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is directed against the order dated 27/8/2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) relating to assessment year 1996-97. 2) Being aggrieved by the Order dated 27/8/2010 the appellant has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice for reopening of assessment issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law as the notice was based on mere change of opinion even though the assessment was reopened within a period of four years and the record shows that the Assessee Company had claimed excess deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act on income which included non fund base income and income from short term finance? 3) The appeal is admitted...
M/S.inox Air Products Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.1 crore for entertaining the appeal against the order-in-original dated 22nd September 2009 is the question raised in this appeal. The appeal is admitted on the above question and taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties to the appeal. 2. The appellant - assessee is inter alia engaged in setting up air-separation plant (equipments for short) at the customers premises. The said equipments are used for manufacturing the oxygen which is ultimately used by the customers in manufacturing their final products. The equipments owned by the assessee are leased to its customers and the assessee enters into an agreement with the respective customer for operating and maintaining the equipments given on lease at a consideration mutually agreed upon by and between the assessee and its customers. 3. The dispute in the present case relates to the service tax liability of the...
M/S. Rabo India Finance Limited, Mumbai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) :- 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 28.3.2011, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the A.Y. 2004-2005 and an order dated 27.3.2011 rejecting the petitioner's objections thereto. 3. We have come to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment is based only on a mere difference of opinion. It is admittedly not on the basis of any new material or the existence or even the realization of any provision of law or a judgment which had not been noticed earlier. The change of opinion occurred in the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2007-2008 leading to the present proceedings for the A.Y. 2004-2005. The very material relied upon had not only been produced before the AO in the previous years but had been brought to his notice and considered by him while passing the assessment orders of the earli...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »