Mumbai Court February 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.
Suditi Indusries Ltd, Navi Mumbai Vs. Asst. Cit, Circle - 10(3)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 29.12.2011, partly allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 16.12.2010. The appeal raises five issues per its five grounds, which we shall take up in seriatim. 2. The first issue is with regard to the addition in the sum of Rs.28,04,95,352/- u/s.41(1) r.w.s. 28(iv) of the Act on account of the waiver of old loans allowed to the 2 assessee by the lender, IDBI, as a part of a one-time settlement under its Securities Asset Stabilisation Fund (SASF). The assessee's principal grievance before us, to no rebuttal by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), was that the said amount stands assessed de hors and without regard to the details of the various loans comprised in the one-time settlement,...
Deepa Restaurant and Bar P. Ltd Vs. Department of Income Tax, Mumbai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] dated 05.12.11. The Revenue is aggrieved from the action of the ld. CIT(A) in setting aside the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO) under section 143(3) read with section 147 by holding that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction on the part of AO. 2. The grounds of appeal for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 by holding that the same suffers from lack of jurisdiction without appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 148 was issued and duly served on the assessee within the limitation date on 30.03.2010." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in setting aside...
Ghisulal S JaIn (Huf), Mumbai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
B.R. Mittal, J.M. 1. The assessee has filed this appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 30/03/2012. 2. In ground no.1of the appeal, the assessee has disputed the confirmation of the addition u/s 68 on account of claim of loan from the following persons. a). Damyanti S Jain Rs.1,00,000/- b). Shri Nalinbhai A Shah Rs.2,50,000/- c). Kirtibhai C Shah Rs.2,50,000/- d). Renudevi Makharia Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Raj Sales and deals in purchasing yarn and sends the same for job work for process of grey fabrics. The same is thereafter sent for checking and then sold in local market and other parts of the country. It is stated that the sales and purchases are through brokers. For the assessment year under consideration the assessee filed return of income of Rs.3,67,140/- on 01/11/2004. The Assessing Officer made assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on 29/12/2006 assessing total income of Rs.15,91,...
Kiran Lilabhai Patel Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Sanjay Arora, A. M.: 1. This is a set of two Miscellaneous Petitions/Applications by the Revenue in respect of a combined order u/s.254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment years (A.Y.) 2006-07 and 2007-08. 2. The tribunal having dismissed the Revenue's Appeals in limine, i.e., as not maintainable in view of the provision of section 268A of the Act, has moved the present applications, claiming that inasmuch as the tribunal states of doing so by following Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 by CBDT (copy on record) prescribing a monetary limit of Rs.3 lacs for appeals by the Revenue before the appellate tribunal, its order is internally inconsistent, as the said Instruction, vide para 11 thereof, clearly states of the being applicable only to appeals filed on or after the date of its issue, i.e., 09.02.2011. The instant appeals having been filed on 02.12.2010, i.e., prior thereto, the said Instruction...
Union of India, Through the Executive Engineer Vs. M/S Bajaj and Co., ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment and order passed on 06/3/1998 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 1138 of 1992. 2. In the year 1986, the appellant had awarded contract for executing the work of construction of Air Route Surveillance Radar building at Civil Aerodrome, Nagpur to the respondent-firm after following the tender procedure. The contract was executed by the respondent but some dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent. As per the terms of the agreement between these parties, the dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator delivered the award by which he ruled that the appellant shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,10,754.27 Ps. together with interest as awarded by him under column No.13. The respondent had claimed, vide column No.13, interest @ 18% per annum on various amounts claimed by it from the appellant from the date they ...
Dinesh Vs. the State Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petitions are admitted for final hearing and interim orders granted by this Court on 10th December 2009 hold the field. This Court on that date by reasoned order stayed the operation and effect of impugned order dated 30.07.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 “ Hon'ble Minister. It also directed filing of an affidavit to show compliance with the orders dated 03.12.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4122 of 2007. Inquiry was also directed to be completed in relation to excess amount of kerosene received by Respondent No. 7 to find out whether it was sold in open market or was handed over to authorized persons. The said order was continued on 27.01.2010 when Rule was issued. This order dated 27.01.2010 came to be questioned in Special Leave Petition No. 20803 of 2010 and it was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 12.07.2010. Thereafter an application for expeditious hearing of writ petition and for dismissal of writ petition came to be filed. On 10.04.2013, this...
Sau. Rukhmabai Vs. Samadhan and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 17.4.2013 the notices were issued for final disposal of this Second Appeal upon substantial question of law formulated as follows: Whether the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are vitiated on account of ignorance of material aspects considered by the trial Court? 2. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of Shri A.V.Bhide, learned counsel appearing for the appellant who questions the validity and legality of the judgment and order, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.91 of 2005, decided on 24.8.2012, whereby the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.99 of 1998 was set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs. 3. The facts in a nutshell, are thus: That the suit land i.e. Gat No.150, situated in village Ambetakli Shivar, Taluka Khamaon, District Buldana, admeasuring 3 H 17 R, was acquired by plaintiff - Sau. Rukhmabai W/o Rambhau Bhad, under registered Sale Deed dated 14.2.1979. Defendant - Sau. Dwarkabai W/o Samadhan Ingle possessed ...
Mohammed Naim Vs. Shaikh Shaziya Farheen and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. By consent heard finally. 3. The petitioner is husband of the respondent no.1. He had been paying maintenance to the respondent no.1 and to the minor child of the petitioner and the respondent no.1, in accordance with the orders passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as œthe Code?). This maintenance amount had been fixed as Rs. 1,500/- per month, in case of respondent no.1 herein i.e. wife. It is not in dispute that after the order of maintenance was passed i.e. after 09.06.2010, the respondent no.1 started working as a teacher in a school. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under section 127 of the Code praying for cancellation of the maintenance awarded to the respondent no.1. This application...
Union of India General Manager and Another Vs. J.S. Kharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner-Union of India assails the Judgment and order dated 2.12.2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.189 of 2004. By the impugned Judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal has partly allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent to the extent that the period of suspension of the respondent has been directed to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pensionary and other pension benefits. 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether under Rule 37 and Rule 50 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rule 1993 an employee who was under suspension and ultimately was compulsorily retired would be entitled for availing of the period of suspension to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary ben...
Saw. Vijayalaxmi Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2014
1. The petitioner was running a hotel, permit room and beer bar, in the name and style of 'Hotel Chandrama Resort'. Permission for keeping an eating house was granted to the petitioner and a Certificate of Registration of the said hotel as an 'eating house', as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, had been issued. By an order dated 1-6-2013 (Exhibit "N" to the petition), the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bhokar (District : Nanded), cancelled the eating house license issued in respect of the said Hotel Chandrama Resort. The petitioner appealed to the State of Maharashtra, challenging the said decision taken by the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, but the said appeal, which was heard by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, came to be dismissed. The petitioner has, by the present petition, approached this Court, challenging the said orders passed by the said authorities and is invoking...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »