Mumbai Court February 2015 Judgments
The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. M/s. Credit Sui ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In this batch of appeals, the Revenue questions the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai dated 28th March, 2013. 2. There are two questions of law which are deemed as substantial questions of law. They read as under : Whether CESTAT was right in holding that refund of Service Tax was available to the assessee under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when the claim was actually filed under Notification No.9/2009-ST or under Notification No.15/2009-ST. (ii) Whether CESTAT was right in holding that the assessee was eligible for refund at all, when the Notification No.15/2009-ST (which amended Notification No.9/2009-ST) specifically provided that if services are wholly consumed in the SEZ, then the same would be exempted from payment of service tax ? 3. At the hearing of these appeals, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee-respondent raised a preliminar...
Tag this Judgment!Abhishek Talwar Vs. L and T Finance Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Admit. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21 January 2015. The impugned order was passed in a Chamber Summons taken out in execution proceedings seeking execution of an Arbitral Award passed in favour of Respondent No.1. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge negated the contention of the Appellant that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Application and thereafter proceeded to direct the Appellant to disclose particulars of his assets as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The facts stated briefly are that the Appellant had taken certain finances as and by way of a loan from Respondent No.1. For the aforesaid loan transaction, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. It is not in dispute that the loan agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 incorporated ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Pralhad Maruti Rankhamb and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th September, 1995 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.23 of 1993, thereby acquitting the respondents / accused of the offences punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of IPC, the State has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: The complainant Shahaji Vithal Sasture, son of the deceased Vithal Sasture had filed complaint. Manohar, Yuvraj and Shivaji are brothers of this witness. Complainant's brother Manohar was married with one Vijayabai daughter of Pandurang Rankhamb from the village Kaddora i.e. village of the complainant. Vijayabai had no brother or sister. Her father was having 6 acres 30 gunthas land. Out of which, he sold 4 acres land to Manohar. Accused are cousin brothers of Vijayabai. They were expecting to get this land sold by Pandurang to Manohar. As Pandurang sold this land to Manohar, they were annoyed. There were quarrels with family of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairavnath Sahakari Vikas, Seva Sanatha Limited and Another Vs. Shamr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
1. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants seek deletion of the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 to the above Civil Revision Application. The said Respondents are accordingly deleted at the risk of the Applicants. 2. Admit. 3. Considering the challenge raised in the above Civil Revision Application, heard forthwith. 4. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 17th July, 2013 passed by the learned 11th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, by which order the applicartion Exhibit 130 filed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be thus: The Suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.343/2013 is filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. The said Suit has been filed for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 amongst whom are the present Applicants in favour of the Defendant Nos.5 to 8...
Tag this Judgment!Abhishek Talwar Vs. L and T Finance Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Admit. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21 January 2015. The impugned order was passed in a Chamber Summons taken out in execution proceedings seeking execution of an Arbitral Award passed in favour of Respondent No.1. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge negated the contention of the Appellant that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Application and thereafter proceeded to direct the Appellant to disclose particulars of his assets as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The facts stated briefly are that the Appellant had taken certain finances as and by way of a loan from Respondent No.1. For the aforesaid loan transaction, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors. It is not in dispute that the loan agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 incorporated ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Shikshan Mandal through its Administrative Officer and Asst. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
1. This petition challenges the following two orders (a) The order dated 27 April 1992, whereby the transfer/alienation of portion of the property alloted to the petitioner in favour of respondent No.10 has been regularized subject to payment of fine of Rs.3.75 lacs; (b) The order dated 27 April 1992, by which 40000 sq.ft. of the property allotted to the petitioners has been ordered to be resumed and returned to the original landlord Mahadu S. Kale and four others as 'special case'. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a Public Charitable Trust, which was originally established in the year 1924 for the purpose of promoting Ayurvedic Education. The Trust has established and administers Tilak Ayurvedic College, Ayurvedic Rasshala, Nanal Hospital, Mehendale Dispensary amongst other institutions at Pune. 3. In the year 1950, the petitioner Trust approached the State Government for acquisition of certain properties necessary for the purpose of extension of the building/housing their various institutio...
Tag this Judgment!Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- XXI, Mumba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dated 21st December, 2006 and 2nd February, 2007 issued by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The substance of the Petitioner's challenge is to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under the Act to make a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) in an Appeal before it for determining the FMV (FMV) of land as on 1st April, 1981. It is this reference by the CIT(A) which led to the issue of the two impugned notices. 2. This Petition was admitted on 24th April, 2007 and the proceedings calling for the report from the DVO was stayed. 3. Shorn of details, the facts are as under: (a) For the Assessment Year 2002-03, the Petitioner filed its return of income, returning a loss of Rs.107.63 Crores. During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2002-03, the Petitioner had sol...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Prabhakar Desale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.): 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months, and further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment of one month, by the Judgment dated 5th May, 2005 in Sessions Case No.138 of 2004, by the 3rd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, by this Appeal, challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal can briefly be stated thus:- The marriage of Kamini, daughter of PW-1 Bhivsan Shankar Pawar and his wife PW-2 Kalabai, was performed with the Appellant about four years prior to the incident. As Kamini had no issue out of the wedlock, t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Nina Trambak Tadas
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th May, 1995, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1994, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for the sake of brevity). 2. Facts projected from police report leading to the prosecution of the respondent/accused can be summarized thus:- [a] Respondent/accused Nina Tadas, is cousin uncle of Gajanan Pandurang Tadas (since deceased). According to prosecution case, there was a dispute between the family of Gajanan Tadas and respondent/accused Nina, over open land situated nearby their house leading to the filing of civil suit by Pandurang Shankar Tadas (PW-2) father of deceased Gajanan. [b] The incident in question allegedly happened on 5.9.1994 at village Harankhkeda, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, where the parties were residing. It was day of 'POLA' festi...
Tag this Judgment!Komal Wazir Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
1. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order dated 1st January 1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal). The impugned order dated 1st November 1999 of the Tribunal disposed of the appeal for the block assessment period 1st April 1986 to 10th October 1996. 2. This appeal was admitted on 14th February 2000 on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 158-B, 158-BA and 158-BB, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 69,298/- could be assessed under Chapter XIV-B of the Act as undisclosed income of the assessee, when it was not disputed that the said sum represented the disclosed income of the assessee during the block period for which no returns were required to be filed as the said disclosed income was below the limit of income chargeable to tax under the Act? (2) Whether ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »