Mumbai Court May 2015 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.
R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (P) Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Court has vide its order dated 16.05.1991 in Income-Tax Reference No. 437 of 1975 directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to refer the following two questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.1.71 crores (Rs. One crore Seventy one lacs only) was included in the income of M/s. R.B.S.D. (export firm) for assessment years 1950-51 to 1958-59; and 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.1.71 crores (Rs. One crore Seventy one lacs only) as the income of assessee from under invoicing in respect of export transactions? 2. Accordingly, we have heard Shri De, learned counsel for the applicant Official Liquidator as assessee company is under winding up orders and Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent Income Tax department. 3. On 26.03.2015, this Court has passed an order in the matter and after briefly referring to ques...
Tanaji Haribhau Jagdale and Others Vs. The State Government of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2015
A.K. Menon, J. 1. By this common order we dispose of the writ petition and PIL. PIL No.79 of 2002 was filed in September, 2002 seeking a writ calling for record and proceedings in respect of the order passed by Respondent No.2, Collector, Satara bearing No.MHA/3/Jamin-Gra/816 and directing Respondent nos.1, 3 and 5 to deliver the land granted under the impugned order dated 5.8.2002 to Respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat. 2. The facts leading to filing of PIL No.79 of 2002 briefly stated are as follows : Vide the impugned order dated 5.8.2002 passed by Respondent No.2 at the instance of Respondent No.1 possession of the gairan (grazing land) admeasuring 10 Hectares 94 Ares out of Gat No.1110 was directed to be given to Respondent No.5 (Jarandeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana) for industrial purposes. According to the Petitioners, the land allotted was gairan land. The Petitioners were alerted by a news article dated 21.7.2002 which reported that an educational institution run by Respondent no....
Keval Shrihari Ramani Vs. The State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, seeks for a declaration that the selection of Respondent no. 3 to 25 for the award of Goa Scholars 2013-14 Scholarship and atlast the selection of Respondent nos. 3 to 14 are null and void and the amount of scholarship already disbursed be repaid to the Government. The further relief sought by the Petitioner is to direct the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to award the Goa Scholars 2013-14 Scholarship to the Petitioner. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued in the Navhind Times calling for the Goa Scholars 2013-14 Scholarship online on or before 23.07.2013. The scheme was not meant to be financial assistance but would recognise the merit and merit alone. Thereafter the advertisement was amended calling for applications off line on or before 30.07.2013. The Petitioner passed his degree examination in Mechanical Engineering through BITS Pilani, K. K. Birla Campus in 2012 standing first in Mech...
Ramesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Water Suppl ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2015
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner was appointed in the office of the respondent No.4 as Junior Clerk on 4th March, 1985. His service record is unblemished. He was promoted on the post of Store Keeper on 23rd April, 1998. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent State issued various Government Resolutions dated 1.11.1977, 28.11.1979, 17.5.1980 and 11.2.1992 and decided to give exemption from passing Divisional Examination for higher pay scale or promotion to those employees who were working as Government servant and who have completed 45 years of age. Accordingly, the rules were amended. The respondent issued circular providing for exemption for passing professional examination to the employees who have completed 45 years of age. It is further case of the petitioner that he completed 45 years of age and also 12 years service in the year, 2005 and, the...
M/s. V. M. Salgaoncar Sales International Vs. Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2015
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. Rule; returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. At the request of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 28/10/2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 3. The reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice dated 28/10/2014 for reopening of assessment are on the following two grounds: (i) Under invoicing of the exports on the basis of Justice M. B. Shah Commission's Report; and (ii) Income arising out of mining is an illegal income, in view of the Supreme Court order dated 21/04/2014 in Writ Petition C. No.435/2012 which had held that the mining leases in Goa had expired on 22/11/2007. Consequently, the income accrued for the Assessment year 2008-2009 cannot be said to be legitimate business income chargeable as ...
Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 4/4/2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. This appeal relates to the Assessment year 1996-1997 filed by the appellant-assesee. Appeal filed by the revenue for Assessment year 1996-97 is ITA No.81 of 2006 and is being disposed of by a separate order. 3. This appeal was admitted on 3/10/2006 on the following substantial questions of law: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts forming part of the Appellant's turnover in its accounts under the head (i) hire of barges; (ii) proceeds of services; (iii) repairs of vessels, which receipts have substantial costs, and arise from the main business activity of the Appellant, could be considered as similar to the specific receipts referred to it in the said clause (baa)? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, receipts by way of sale proceeds from (i...
M/s. Cosme Matias Menezes, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Both the Petitions were taken up together as both the learned Counsel pointed out that the facts in both the Petitions were identical in respect of Assessment year 2006-2007. 3. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ of certoriari or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 17.12.2009 of the Respondent and allow the application dated 06.04.2009 filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of one day. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed its return of income in Form 1 in hard copy with the office of the Respondent on 31.03.2008 as the return of Income was not uploaded in the electronic form on to the server of the Income Tax Department. The server of the Respondent uploaded the return of Income on 01.04.2005 electronically. This return of Income was in fact the ...
Abid and Company Steels Private Limited and Others Vs. The Bombay Merc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2015
1. By these petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 21st April 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondent and declaring that the petitioners herein are jointly and severally liable to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.9,88,55,938,80 as on 30th September 2006 with further interest @ 16% from 1st October 2006 till payment. The petitioners have also been directed to pay arbitration fees of Rs.30,800/- and administrative charges of Rs.12,500/-. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under: 2. The respondent-bank is a Co-operative Society registered under Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and also deemed to be registered under Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners are its members and shareholders. The respondent ha...
Royal Palms (India) Private Limited Vs. Neeta Jignesh Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 8th June, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner was the original respondent, whereas the respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. 3. The respondent herein is carrying on business of supply of material such as pipes, pipe fittings, flanges etc. to the developers, builders and contractors. The petitioner is carrying on business of infrastructure and real estate development of residential and commercial properties, tourist complexes and hotels. 4. During the period between November, 2006 to October, 2008, the respondent supplied various kinds of material such as pipes, pipe fittings, flanges, valves ...
Harish Ramesh Pulekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J ] 1. By this Appeal, preferred by the Appellant Original Accused Harish R. Pulekar, exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 27th December, 2007 passed by the I/c Adhoc District Judge-I, Thane in Sessions Case No.382 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned I/c Adhoc District Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default thereof, the Appellant is to suffer a further R. I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case stated briefly, is thus - (a) The Appellant was married to the deceased Yogini. Due to their differences and marital disputes, they could not stay together and they had filed for a divorce. During pendency of the divorce petition, on 24th July 2006, the Appellant took the deceased Yogini to Ami Park Lodge at Ambadi Naka. The Appellant took a room in the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »