Mumbai Court February 2013 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.
Atul and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
This group of Criminal Writ Petitions involves common question in respect of C.R. No.129/2009 (R.C.C. No.90/2009) and C.R. No.109/2009 (R.C.C. No.83/2009), are heard together. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 3. Mr. Atul Deshmukh (borrower) had taken a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the Chalisgaon People's Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chalisgaon (For short, "the Bank") on 31-3-2001. There was another loan of Rs.41,02,720/- / Rs.42,00,000/- released in favour of Rajiv Hotels Private Ltd., by the said Bank. 4. One group of Criminal Writ Petitions, as stated earlier, is by said borrowers, guarantors and Directors. Another group of Criminal Writ Petitions is again by the same borrowers, guarantors and Directors, concerning second loan. 5. The borrower could not repay the loan amounts, Bank had taken proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, "MCS Act"), before the competent authority, and a recovery certificate to this effect was gr...
Hercules Hoists Limited Acit Vs. Mumbai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Sanjay Arora, A.M. 1. This is a set of four Appeals by the Assessee directed against the Orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 07.09.2010, 07.09.2010, 21.12.2010 and 13.09.2011 for four consequent years, being assessment years (AYs) 2005-06 to 2008-09, partly allowing the assessee's appeals against its assessments u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the relevant years. 2. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together and are being disposed of vide a common, consolidated order. The principal issue arising in these appeals, raised by the assessee per its Ground No. 1, is in respect of determination of its business income for the relevant years without allowing it set off of depreciation / losses of its two Units, i.e., Windmill 1 and 2, income from which is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. 2.1 The basis of the Assessing Officer's (A.O.) disallowance, since confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is...
M/S. Mardia Extrusions Ltd. and Another Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai and ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
D. Manmohan, V.P. 1. These two appeals involve an identical issue and they arise out of the orders passed by the CIT(A)-8, Mumbai wherein penalty levied by the AO having been affirmed by the learned CIT(A), assessee challenged before us by contending that the addition made in the assessment proceedings is only on account of the addition agreed upon by the assessees before the Central Excise authority under the KVSS scheme whereas the circumstances indicate that it was neither a case of concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and hence it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. 2. The facts in both the appeals being identical the facts mentioned in the case of M/s. Mardia Extrusions Ltd. are reproduced herein to highlight the issue before us. The assessee, M/s. Mardia Extrusions Ltd. was engaged in the business of manufacturing Brass Rods, Brass Tubes, Brass Wires, etc. by utilising the raw material such as Brass Billets, Brass Ingots, etc. On 01.10.1993 a search w...
Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. Shri Mohammad Farooq Tax Range
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
VIVEK VARMA, JM: 1. The appeal is filed by the department, against the order of CIT(A) XXVII, Mumbai, dated 09.03.2009, wherein, the following grounds have been taken: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the agreement made between assessee and developer was a fraud made by brother of assessee and deleted the additions made on account of on money received by assessee which was identified on the basis of incriminating papers seized during the action u/s. 132 of I.T. Act, in the case of CPDPL (Developer of the property). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of receipt of on money holding that the AO has not brought any confirmation or material evidence on record for the receipt of the funds. 2. The solitary issue is with regard to deletion of addition made on account of on money received by the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is ...
M/S.Bayer Material Science Pvt. the Asstt.Commissioner of Ltd. Vs. Mum ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
R.S. Syal (AM): 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 12.10.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in relation to the A.Ys. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Since some common issues are involved in these appeals, we are therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. A.Y. 2004-05:- 2. First ground of this appeal is against upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in disallowing the brought forward loss of Bayer TPU Pvt. Ltd. (amalgamating company)(hereinafter called as BTPU) amounting to Rs. 7,73,00,414/- u/s. 72A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of this ground are that two separate companies - BTPU and Bayer Specialty Products Pvt. Ltd. (BSPPL) - got amalgamated with the assessee-company in the year under consideration. Initially, the assessee claimed a set off of loss of Rs. 12.53 crore u/s.72A of the Act. However, in the revised computation of income, the amount of brought forward loss was re...
Dinesh Kalyaji Gala and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
1 The Petitioners are the accused nos.1 and 2 respectively in Criminal Case No.8/PW/2010 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, at Dadar, Mumbai. The allegation against them, as has been leveled in the said case, is that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act), 1966. The petitioners raised a contention that the cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by them could not have been taken as the case had been instituted after the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), and by an application dated 12.7.2011, styled as 'application for rescinding cognizance of the alleged offences', prayed that the case be closed or dismissed by rescinding or cancelling the cognizance that had been taken by the trial court. The learned Magistrate after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor rejected the said application by an order dated 1.11.201...
Francisco X. Jacques, Chairman, Batim Tenant Association and Another V ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. A letter dated 31/08/1999 was received from the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 168/2000. By this letter, the petitioner brought to the attention of this Court the alleged illegalities committed by respondents no. 7 and 8 by purchasing a large number of paddy fields at Goa Velha bearing survey nos. 14/1 to 14/35 and by illegally converting them into developed plots for sale. It was alleged that he had complained to the village Panchayat of St. Andre, Collector of North Goa, Directorate of Health Services, Directorate of Panchayats, Block development office and Town and Country Planning Department. It was also alleged that the said activities damaged the paddy fields and caused ecological imbalance inter alia, by the land being filled up with mud, which in turn, obstructed the free flow of water, resulting in floods and losses to the farmers and tenants. The petitioner further alleged that his complaints to the authorities remained unanswered and, in fact, the Town and Co...
Siemens Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2013
Amit Shukla, J.M. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the CIT (A)-11, Mumbai in relation to the order passed under section 195(2), inter alia on the following grounds of appeal: "1. Based on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-ll [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] ought to have held that no tax is required to be deducted @ 10% from the payment to be made to Pehla Testing Laboratory (Pehla) towards type tests. 2. The CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the payment to be made mainly for standard facility provided by laboratory using highly sophisticated equipment and is essential and core ingredient for carrying out the test. CIT (A) wrongly ignored this aspect which is going to the root of the case. Even while noting that Pehla carried out type test using sophisticated equipment without any human intervention CIT (A) failed to address the topic and wrongly held that consid...
Shashikant Jagannath Powar Vs. Baburao Huvappa Kurhade Deceased Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The short question which arises for consideration in the above Petition is whether the Petitioner who has filed a Suit for specific performance should be allowed to amend the plaint so as to claim the relief of possession albeit alternatively. 3 The order impugned is one dated 18-1-2013 passed by the Learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur, by which order, the application for amendment of the plaint so as to claim the relief in the alternative for possession has been rejected. The said rejection as can be seen from the order is on the ground that the amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has begun. In view of the settled position in law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the matter reported in 2009(4) MhLJ 30 in the matter of Vidyabaiand others Vs. Padmalatha and another and in the Judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC 806 in the matter of AjendraprasadjiPande Vs Swami Keshavpr...
Smt. Fehameeda Begum W/O Mahamood Khan Pathan Vs. Abdul Hafiz S/O. She ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The only issue that arises for determination in this petition is whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant is bad-in-law or whether the notice would be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the arrears of admitted rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice and/or within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. The petitioner is the landlady. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the respondent seeking the arrears of rent for the period from 01/11/2002 till 31/10/2005 at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month. In spite of the service of the notice, the respondent-tenant did not pay the rent. A suit was, therefore...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »