Mumbai Court March 2015 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. As requested by the parties, since the question of law canvassed in all these matters are same, Income Tax Appeal No.120 of 2013 is treated as a lead case and arguments are heard therein with an understanding that adjudication therein will dispose of the other appeals also. 2. Income Tax Appeal No.120 of 2013 is preferred against the Order dt.22-03-2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in ITA No. 113/Nag/2012 with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That, on or about 13-01-2009, a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the business premises of M/s.Concrete Developers, Nagpur and residential premises of its Director. Several books of account and documents were seized. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17-09-2010 along with detailed questionnaire seeking in explanation and d...
Tag this Judgment!Meghana Motichand Fatarpekar, Major and Others Vs. Vidhya Fatarpekar, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Shri Thali, the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 waives notice. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners in this criminal revision application are original opponents. The first respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act of 2005, for short) for various reliefs. The present petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the first respondent while the petitioner no. 3 is the brother-in-law of the first respondent. 3. It appears that the first respondent had filed an application in Form No. II, on 20.09.2013 (Exhibit-1). Later the first respondent had filed an application under Section 12 (Exhibit-7) on 21.12.2013. It appears that there was also an application for interim relief filed. On behalf of the applicant, a reply came to be filed to the main application on 16.01.2014. It appears that on 18.03.2014, the applicants filed an application (Exhibi...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Paramhari Engineers Vs. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents. This Court has on 23.12.2013 called upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.32,42,500/- with the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, that amount is already deposited by the petitioner. 2. The communication dated 20.11.2013 sent by the respondent demanding an amount of Rs.32,42,500/- only towards non-refundable additional premium as a condition for grant of extension of time limit up to 27.02.2014 for approval of revised building plans, completion of factory building and obtaining Building Completion Certificate (B.C.C.) is assailed by the petitioner Industrial unit before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The question raised by the petitioner before this ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Narayan Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
AnujaPrabhuessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.2 and learned APP. 2. The petitioners herein have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR No.22 of 2014 registered against them at Kharghar Police Station under Section 367, 467, 468, 195, 406, 506, 420 and 383 of IPC. 3. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are attached to Kharghar Police Station as Senior Police Inspector, Police Inspector, and Assistant Police Inspector respectively. Pursuant to the order dated 2.12.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate, 2nd Court, Panvel, on an application filed by the respondent no.2 purported to be under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Crime No.22 of 2014 has been registered against the aforesaid petitioners for offences as stated above. The petitioners have stated that the Magistrate has passed the impugned order on ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohandas and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioners landowners have approached this Court for setting aside the reservation No. S-169 in Final Development Plan of Gondia Town reserving their lands i.e. Survey Nos. 405/1, 406/2, 407/2, 410/2 and 411 of Mouza Gondia (Bk), for shopping complex and vegetable market. They also want a declaration that they are free to use and develop it as per user of adjacent lands. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is the relevant legislation. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy involved in the matter, We have heard the matter finally with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Rule is, therefore issued in the matter and the same is made returnable forthwith. 3. Final development plan under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act for short), for Gondia Municipal Town was published on 24.08.1984, and in it, the said land admeasuring .44 Hectors was reserv...
Tag this Judgment!Rujuta Pradeep Mhatre and Others Vs. Mrs. Smita Harihar Parelkar and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
1. This is a petition for Letters of Administration to the estate, property and credits of one Shankarrao H. Parelkar (Shankarrao), who died on 8th November 1979. Shankarrao was survived by his widow Sitabai; his sons Manohar, Yeshwant and Harihar; and a daughter, Sarojini Bhatte. Shankarrao died intestate; none have propounded any Will or testamentary writing. His estate would, therefore, devolve as on intestacy, with a 1/5th or 20% share in his estate going to his widow and four children respectively. This is not disputed. 2. At the time of his death, Shankarrao was a 50% partner in a firm known as M/s Parelkar and Dallas. This was a firm of architects of some considerable repute and standing among architects and in the construction industry in Mumbai. It had considerable business, revenue and goodwill. The firm continues today, though, as we shall see, in considerably changed circumstances. The firm was first established on 19th October 1948 and has been in practice since then. Vina...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, State Trans ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2015
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking directions against the Respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Traffic Controller from the open category, even though he belongs to the reserved class. 3. Most of the facts are undisputed. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner entered into the services of the Respondent Corporation, after completing the required formalities in the year 1981, as a Conductor. There is further no dispute that, the Petitioner belongs to Rajput Bhamta Scheduled Tribe and the said caste is recorded in the service book of the Petitioner. There is further no dispute that, the caste certificate of the Petitioner has not yet been validated by the concerned Caste/Tribe Scrutiny Committee. 4. In the year 2011, the Respondent Corporation advertised the promotional post of Traffic Controller vide notice published on 30.06.2011. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-27-2015
1. This is an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) challenging the order dated 2/07/2007 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. The appeal was admitted on 30/06/2008 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether there is any discretion with the authorities to waive off penalty under Rule 57U(6) of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (2) Whether penalty can be set aside merely because the evaded excise duty is paid before issuance of the Show Cause Notice by the Department? 3. Briefly the facts leading to the present appeal are that on 18/02/1999 the Officers of Central Excise Department intercepted a tempo van bearing registration no.GJ/5U/675. On examination, it was found that the said van was loaded with 20 drums of chemicals under the brand name of DEHPA (spent) (hereinafter referred to as 'goods') which had been loaded from the factory of the responde...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saish Shivanand Raikar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-27-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant ie. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, against the judgment and award dated 7.1.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Margao (Presiding Officer for short) in Claim Petition no.32/2010 whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 was partly allowed and the learned Presiding Officer has awarded total compensation of Rs.17,16,665/- together with 9% interest from the date of application. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- Claimants have moved the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs.39,31,000/- due to death of their mother in the motor vehicular accident. On 20.09.2007 the deceased Nayan, aged about 44 years was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registrat...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Alliance Space Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Income Tax Officer 6(1)(1), Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Menon, J.) 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing . 2. By this order, we dispose of both the writ petitions which are on a similar set of facts. Writ Petition (L) No.735 of 2015 pertains to assessment year 2008-09 whereas Writ Petition (L) No.736 of 2015 pertains to assessment year 2009-10. The challenge in the petition is to two notices dated 24th March, 2015 and 29th March, 2014 respectively issued by the Income Tax Officer 6(1)-2, Mumbai under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. We will briefly advert to the facts in Writ Petition (L) No.735 of 2015. The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of property development and constructing residential complexes inter alia at Pune. Respondent No.1 is the Assessing Officer in-charge of the Petitioner's assessment. Respondent No.2 is the earlier Assessing Officer who handled the Petitioner's assessment before transfer of the jurisdiction to Respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »