Mumbai Court November 2014 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.
Equinox Business Parks (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. The challenge in this Petition is to order dated 30 January 2013 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (for short "TPO") under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short "the Act"), Draft Assessment Order dated 26 March 2013 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act and directions dated 31 December 2013 given by the Dispute Resolution Panel ( for short "DRP") under Section 144C(5) of the Act. The impugned orders have held that the issue of equity shares and the issue of Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCD) convertible into four equity shares each to its non-resident Associated Enterprises (AE) gives rise to income from International Transactions and is chargeable to tax under the Act. 2. This Petition deals with the A.Y. 2009-10. 3. The Petitioner on 24 September 2009 had filed return of his income for the A.Y. 2009-10 declaring a loss of Rs.8.49 crores. Along with its return of income the Petitioner had also filed Form No.3CEB under Section 92...
Essar Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. At the instance of the Counsel, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 30 January 2013 of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), Draft Assessment Order dated 20 March 2013 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act and the order dated 31 December 2013 containing the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 3. This Petition relates to the A.Y. 2009-10. The Petitioner had issued shares to its non-resident Associated Enterprise (AE) of the face value of Rs.10/-at the premium of Rs.120/- each per share. The Petitioner had, along with its return of Income, filed Form 3CEB with the Assessing Officer. In specific response to Sr. No.13 of the annexure to Form 3CEB it was specifically stated that Rs.9,99,000 was received from Essar Projects Limited, Dubai (Holdi...
Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch, Mumbai (Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. This criminal revision application impugns the order passed by Special Judge, Greater Mumbai in Special Case No. 42 of 2012 below Exh.46. Exh.46 was an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai for deleting the name of Respondent No.2 (accused No.11 Ashok Shankarrao Chavan) from the chargesheet and closing the case against him. 5. The chargesheet against accused No.11, respondent No.2 herein and others was filed after completion of investigation of crime registered at CBI, ACB, Mumbai vide First Information Report No. RC No. 6(A)/2011. The First Information Report was registered against 13 accused on the basis of source information that the accused had entered into conspiracy to grab government land admeasuring about 3758 sq.mtrs. in Block-VI at Colaba, adjacent to Backbay Bus Depot, Mumbai which was in possession of Army and was being used as park b...
S.G. Asia Holdings (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. At the request of the learned Counsel, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. At the very outset, Mr Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions states that Petitioner undertakes that the objection filed by the Petitioner to the draft assessment order dated 31 January 2014 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short "DRP") would be withdrawn by the Petitioner to the extent it relates to the issues raised in the present Petition. The undertaking is accepted. It is only thereafter that we proceed to consider the merits of this Petition. 3. This Petition challenges the following orders: (a) The order dated 30 January 2014 passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by Transfer Pricing Officer (for short "TPO"); and (b) Draft Assessment Order dated 31 January 2014 passed by the Assessing Officer; 4. The challenge to the above impugned orders is that to the extent, the impugned orders have...
State of Goa Vs. Conny N. Pereira
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is State Appeal against the judgment and order dated 24/01/2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji (Assistant Sessions Judge, for short) in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2011 by which the respondent who was accused no. 1 in IPC Case No. 29/2001/B, has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), by giving benefit of doubt to him. 2. In all four accused persons were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji (J.M.F.C, for short) in the said IPC Case No. 29/2001/B for offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Case of the prosecution was as follows: Prior to 11.07.2000, time not known, at Goa University, Bambolim, the accused no. 1, Conny Pereira obtained forged documents namely mark list and passing certificate of B.Com, from the accused no. 2, Sudesh Naik, who along with accused no 3, Saude Lourence, accused no. 4, Peter C...
Champaklal Jivraj Jain Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
P.C. 1. After the matter was argued on three different dates by learned Senior Counsel Shri Kamdar and the arguments were practically over, upon a suggestion being made by this Court we had requested both the parties to see whether the matter could be settled amicably. It appears that though both the parties had practically agreed to settle the dispute in respect of certain modalities which were to be worked out, there was a disagreement and we were informed on the last date that the settlement was not possible and therefore the matter was kept for hearing today. Today, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a request that Shri Kamdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has returned the brief and that the other counsel is also not available. It is submitted that the matter may be adjourned to two days in order to enable the petitioner's counsel to argue the matter. 2. We have declined to accede to the request made by the learned Counsel for th...
Avinash Nandkumar Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in C.R. No.264/2014 registered at Kurla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 171 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.8.2014, Deepesh Tiwari lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that he was acquainted with one Ravindra Waghchaure. That there were cordial relations between Ravindra Waghchaure and the complainant. In August, 2013, Ravindra Waghchaure had informed him that he is well-connected with the partners of Omkar Builders and one of the partners namely Harish Solanki desires to sell a flat. The complainant had accepted the proposal and on 30.9.2013, an agreement to sell was executed. The area of the said flat was not mentioned in the agreement. On 1.10.2013, Harish Solanki had signed as a partner of Omkar Builders and the signatures were obtai...
General Employees' Union Vs. Messrs Inter-Gold (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2014
1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the judgment and order dated 29/07/2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai, by which order the Complaint (ULP) No.317 of 2005 came to be disposed of and the Complaint (ULP) No.428 of 2005 came to be dismissed. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: Respondent No.1 in both the Complaints i.e. Complaint (ULP) No.317 of 2005 and Complaint (ULP) No.428 of 2005 is M/s. Inter-Gold (I) Pvt. Ltd. which had a diamond division. In the said diamond division about 450 workmen were employed. The said workmen were owing allegiance to Bhartiya Kamgar Sena (hereinafter referred to as BKS for short). The said BKS was a recognized union in so far as Respondent No.1 is concerned. The said BKS had filed Complaint (ULP) No.317 of 2005 against the Respondent No.1 and its Directors invoking items 5, 6 of schedule-II and items 2, 3...
Ali Mohamed @ Sameer Vs. Latifabi Abdul Aziz Shaikh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
P.C. Heard rival submissions on this application for condonation of delay of about 348 days in preferring the revision petition. The present application is filed by the husband asking for condonation of delay. The applicant has also filed another application being No.145 of 2014 for stay to the execution of the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2013 passed by the Family Court No.IV at Bandra, Mumbai. 2. Petition No.E/123 of 2009 preferred by the present respondent No.1 - wife under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was finally heard and disposed of by the Family Court No.IV, Bandra, Mumbai by an order dated 2nd January, 2013. By the said order, peculiar directions are given by the Family Court while partly allowing the said application. Also the reasoning given by the trial Court and the answers to the points arrived at for determination are also absurd, inasmuch as point no.1 is to the effect "whether the petitioner proved that she is unable to maintain herself?" The...
The Deputy Collector and S.D.O. and Others Vs. Abel Pereira Silveira a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
1. Heard Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate for the appellants. 2. By the above appeal and cross objection, the judgment and award dated 31/01/2007 passed by the learned District Judge (3), Margao (reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 2003 has been challenged. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Ac,t 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in Official Gazette dated 23/02/2000, the Government acquired land for construction and B/T of ring road from Margao Quepem road from level crossing at Aquem to eastern bye pass including parking for vehicles in Margao city. This acquisition included land admeasuring 362 square meters of coconut land from survey no. 250/28 and paddy land admeasuring 1438 square meters from survey no. 250/29 both situated in the city of Margao of Salcete Taluka. Vide Award dated 05/02/2002, the learned Land Acquisitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »