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.
M/S. Bennett, Coleman Vs. Income-tax- Range
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, JM. : 1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order dtd. 2-9-2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Mumbai for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals, guaranteeing, money lending, exports, telecasting and broadcasting on TV and radio. It filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 158,12,88,918.00. The A.O. after processing the return u/s 143 (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act), selected the case for scrutiny and accordingly issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The assessee has also filed revised return of income at total income of Rs. 158,01,27,570.00 However, the assessment after making certain additions and disallowances including disallowances of repair expenses Rs. 58,92,803.00 was completed at an income of Rs. 1,659,031,250.00 vide order dtd. 30-3-2000 passed u/s 143(3) ...
M/S. Arco Electro Asst. Commissioner of Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ran ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
Rajendra, A.M. Following Grounds of Appeal have been filed by the appellant against the Order dt. 13-08-2010 of the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai : 1.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made ofRs.42,09,552/- being the commission payment made which be deleted. (b) The learned CIT(A) erred in stating that, the payment is made against public policy and erred in stating that, explanation to section 37(1) is applicable and that the payments made are in the nature of illegal gratification. (c) The learned CIT(A) and the assessing officer erred in observing that, no details as to services rendered were filed. (d) The appellant prays that the amount of Rs.42,09,552/- paid being business expenditure incurred in course of the business be allowed in full and addition deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add amend or alter any or all of the ground of appeal. 2. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacturing of Brush Ho...
M/S. Johnson and Johnson Limited Vs. the Addl.Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
R.S. Syal (AM) : These two sets of cross appeals relate to assessment years 2000- 2001 and 2001-2002. Since some of the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Year 2000-2001 2. First ground of the assessee's appeal is against the confirmation of addition on account of sales made to Johnson and Johnson Exports Limited of Rs.68,41,258. 3. At the very outset the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that similar issue was raised in assessee's own case for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Placing on record a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2679/Mum/2003 and 2680/Mum/2003 dated 18th January, 2013, the learned AR contended that the Tribunal was pleased to restore this issue to the file of A.O. with certain directions. The learned Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of this ground are similar to those of ...
M/S. Jindal Drugs Ltd., Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Income Bakhtawar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2013
D. Karunakara Rao, AM. 1. There are three appeals under consideration. Out of three appeals, two appeals are filed by the assessee and one appeal is filed by the Revenue. I.T.A. NO.751/M/2008 and ITA No. 2436/M/2008 for the AY: 2004-2005 are the cross appeals and they are filed against the order of CIT (A)-III, Mumbai dated 5.12.2007. The other appeal I.T.A. NO.2591/M/2008 again relates to the AY:2004-2005k but it has genesis in the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, relevant facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of dyes, menthol based products etc. Assessee filed its return of income declaring the income of Rs. 17.8 Cr (rounded off to nearest lakhs) after claiming deduction u/s 80-HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 2.91 Cr, deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,21,211/- and finally the deduction u/s 80-G the Act amounting to Rs. 93.8 lakhs. In the scrutiny assessment, the assessed income was determined at ...
Mrs. Gover Neville Cardmaster / Gover Navill Cadmaster of Australia Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2005 passed by the Judge, 7th Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No.A-961 of 2002 2. The respondent had filed petition under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 read with Section 27(1)(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. 3. According to the respondent - original petitioner they got married on 11.11.1988 under the provisions of Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. They cohabited and resided together at Marine Mansion, Marine Street, Mumbai. The respondent contends that on 12.3.1988 he went to Tasmania via Melbourne to study at the Australian Marine Time College. During that period the appellant herein met the respondent. The appellant was already married to one Minoo Rusi Kateli. The appellant and respondent became friendly. The appellant confided with the respondent that she was not happy with her husband and they were on the ...
Prakash Jagannath Mane Vs. Hon'ble Registrar General
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
A.S. Oka, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25th February 2011 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangli, by which the fourth respondent was appointed as the Registrar of the District Court at Sangli. The case of the petitioner is that his rightful claim to the post of the Registrar has been illegally denied. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though as per the seniority reflected from the gradation list the petitioner is the senior most in the feeder cadre, the fourth respondent who is junior to the petitioner has been illegally appointed. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as a Section Writer on 26th June 1978 and was promoted as the Superintendent on 2nd March 2009. He submitted that the entire career of the petit...
Mavi Industrial Ltd. (Formerly Known as Krishna Filaments Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
J.P. Devedhar, J. 1) The question that is to be considered in this appeal is as follows:- When the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ, Mumbai by extending the letter of permission has extended the 100% EOU status of an assessee for a further period of five years, then, before the expiry of the extended period, is it open to the customs authorities to recover customs duty with interest, penalty and fine in respect of the capital goods, spares and raw materials imported by the said 100% EOU, solely on the ground that, non fulfilment of the export obligation within the first block of five years constitutes violation of the bond executed under notification No.53 of 1997 and violation of Sections 61 and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2) The appeal is admitted on the above question and taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 3) The relevant facts are that the appellant-assessee originally known as Krishna Filaments Ltd. carried on the business of manufacturing HDPE ropes. By a letter of permi...
Nirali Mehta Vs. Surendrakumar Surana and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
P.C.: 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is the mother of the minor child Eklavya. The Petitioner is his guardian. The Petitioner and her husband have been divorced by mutual consent in MJP No. F-497/2010 filed in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The Petitioner's husband has given up custody and access to his child. He filed an affidavit in the Family Court on 27th September, 2010. Clause Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit giving up his legal guardianship as also access and his visiting rights run thus: Clause 4 : I state that it is agreed between Petitioner No.1 and me that the permanent irrevocable custody and legal guardianship of the minor child Ekalavya shall remain with Petitioner No.1, even under changed circumstances, including in the event of her remarriage. Clause 5 : I state that it is agreed between Petitioner No.1 and me that the I have waived my visitation rights to the minor child Ekalavya and have undertaken not to make any claims regarding the same in f...
Dr. Vinod S/O Babarao Rode and Another Vs. the District Judge-2 and An ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial court on 15.10.2010, allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 2-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing that the petitioners be sent to civil prison for a period of one month for breach of injunction order dated 21.01.2002. The petitioners also challenge the judgment passed by the District Judge, Amravati. on 2.3.2012, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 15.10.2010. One Atmaram Bahadursingh Panjabi was the original plaintiff. The respondent no.2 is the legal heir of Atmaram. In the year 2001, Atmaram filed a civil suit against the petitioners for declaration, injunction and cancellation of the sale deed. An application was filed by Atmaram under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil ...
Mahendra Vs. Smt. Kantalal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the trial court on 7.3.2012 and 16.8.2012, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act for possession. The suit was filed in the year 2003 and the respondent-landlord tendered the evidence on affidavit on 21.9.2004. When the matter was at the stage of the evidence of the petitioner-defendant, an application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. By the proposed amendment the petitioner wanted to plead that during the pendency of the proceedings, in the year 2005, the plaintiff had let out the shop block vacated by another tenant and this showed that the plaint...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »