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.
Commissioner of Income Tax-i Vs. Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
R.M. Borde, J. Heard Mr.Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant. None appears for the Respondent, though served. 2. Admit. 3. The Respondent is a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Society deals in manufacturing and sell of sugar. The Co-operative Society purchases sugarcane both from members and non members. The Society, during the relevant period, sold sugar at concessional rate to its members and non members. While passing the assessment order for the assessment year 2006-2007, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar, disallowed the claim in respect of excess purchase price. At the same time, the Assessment Officer directed that the excess sugarcane price worked at Rs.9,86,08,069/-, thus, needs to be added to the income of the assessee. That, so far as quantity of sugar sold at concessional rate to the members and non members is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the excess concessio...
Shakuntala W/O Balasaheb Balsaraf, Since Deceased Through Her Legal He ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 9th August, 2012 passed below Exhibit-137 in Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 2000 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akole, District Ahmednagar. 3. The back ground facts as disclosed in the petition are as under:- The petitioners herein, are the original plaintiffs and the respondents herein, are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 310 of 2000. The said suit is filed for declaration and injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the said suit, the petitioners herein, filed application for amendment in the plaint, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the averments in the plaint and submitted that, the suit property was earlier owned by one Ashok Narayan Shete, and father of petitioner NO.1A Dhondiba Anand Balsaraf was in...
Jaisingrao Abasaheb and Others Vs. Pratapsing Wamanrao Rane and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
This appeal is filed by respondents no. 1 to 5 of Land Acquisition Case No. 77 of 1989 against the Judgment and Award dated 14/08/2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa in the said case. 2. It is seen from the records that the appeal has been shown as dismissed as against Respondents no. 3, 4 and 7 on the ground that they were not served and no steps were taken to serve them within the time fixed. However, it is noticed that Respondents no. 3 and 4 are none else than Respondents no.2(1) and 2(2) who are duly served. It is further seen that Respondent no.7 is respondent no.2(6) who has also been duly served. It is, therefore, clear that the appeal has been wrongly shown as dismissed as against Respondents no. 3, 4 and 7. It is seen that Respondent no.2(7) is unmarried daughter of deceased Respondent no.2 who could not be served and the appeal has been dismissed as against her. However, she is from the set of the claimants who are duly represented by the learned Adv...
Smt. Mannekben S. Tandel and Others Vs. Pascoal Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The above petition challenges the judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 14.07.2010 whereby the tenancy revision preferred by the respondent no.1 came to be allowed and the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners before the Dy. Collector along with the application for leave to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Mamlatdar came to be quashed and set aside. 3. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the Dy. Collector upon appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have made out a case to condone the delay. The learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioners have filed an application for condonation of delay immediately after they learnt about the order passed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›