Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)25ITD479(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee has raised several issues which are considered seriatim below. (i) Swastik Household & Industrial Products, (ii) Sarabhai Research Centre and (iii) Operation Research Group. A company, M/s. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd., transferred and assigned as a going concern on 30-6-1973 its various industrial undertakings and businesses to its wholly-owned subsidiary. While doing so, with effect from 30-6-1973, that company had transferred and assigned its industrial undertaking of Swastik Oil Mill division as a going concern to the assessee-company. With effect from the close of business of the assessee as on 28-2-1977, the assessee-company which had in the meanwhile set up two divisions, Swastik Research Centre and Operation Research Group, in 1974, transferred the industrial undertakings and businesses of Swastik Household & Industrial Products Division, business of Operation Research Group and the Sarabhai Research Centre to its subsidiary company, M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C.:- 1. This is one of those matters where the court is anguished with the conduct of the defendant who despite being given repeated opportunity has repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the court. It is rather unfortunate that the defendant, who is probably in his 30's at least from the appearance, if let off to continue with his behaviour, it will erode the faith that the public have on judiciary. The rule of law is premised upon the faith reposed by the people in the justice delivery system. To prevent erosion of that faith contemptuous behaviour in the face of the court needs a strict treatment. 2. The plaintiffs, who are the applicants, filed a summary suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,25,25,687/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.2,84,04,480/-. The plaintiffs also took out a summons for judgment. 3. The defendant Krishna Dushyant Rana is the sole proprietor of a concern to whom the plaintiffs sold, supplied and delivered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Menezes, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28/06/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I (Trial Judge, for short) in Sessions Case No. 10/2010/I. 3. Initially, charge sheet No.09/2009 was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). The allegation was that the accused, on 01/12/2009 at 22.00 hours at House no. 202, near Pai Hospital, at Vaddem, Vasco, after latching his bed room from inside, assaulted his wife, Rupa alias Samiksha Shetye, by stabbing her in her stomach by means of a knife and caused grievous injuries to her and attempted to commit her murder. Charge was framed by the Trial Judge for the said offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) to which the accused pleaded not guil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... the financial condition of the accused, particularly accused no.1 was very good and he had obtained loan after pledging the gold. it could also be noticed that the other nationalised bank has given no objection as regards any dues outstanding against accused no.1. apart therefrom, it is also required to be noted that vide exh.269, property bearing no .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)101ITD495(Mum.)
1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the following grounds: 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, is bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT erred in holding that loss of Rs. 13,90,096 incurred by the appellant on sale of import entitlement license is not admissible deduction. 3. The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that appellant had shown the value of import entitlement at Rs. 73,01,184 in the closing stock of assessment year 1996-97 and after selling part of it in assessment year 1997-98 and making a profit, the appellant had sold the balance in assessment year 1998-99 in which loss of Rs. 13,90,096 was incurred and therefore, the same had been correctly allowed by the Assessing Officer as deduction. 4. The Ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate that whereas in assessment year 1996-97, the appellant was allowed deduction under Section 80...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)10ITD240(Mum.)
1. All the appeals except the last two are by the department. The common point in dispute in all these appeals relates to the allowability of certain amounts claimed by the assessee under the head 'Sales Promotion Expenses' and stated to represent secret commission incurred in connection with its business. Except for the last two assessment years where the appeals of the assessee are before us, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim of secret commission. For the last two years, the claim not being allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has come up on appeal. For the assessment year 1975-76, the department has challenged four other points and for the assessment year 1976-77, three points. These are dealt with first and the common point relating to the secret commission is dealt with in the later part of this order.2. The assessee sold a flat during the year along with a garage at Hill Park. Long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,11,500 were returned. The ITO ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. The Appellants/original accused no 1 to 6, who stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 201, 324, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-each, and independent sentences to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I for three years for the office punishable under section 324 read with Section 149 and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default R.I. for six months under section 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Ist Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, by judgment dated 8.5.2007 in Sessions Case no.102 of 2006, by this appeal challenges their conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:- P.W.26Gonvind Bhagwan Omase, Police Sub-Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. The Appellants were prosecuted in Sessions Case No.74 of 2008 for offences under sections 498 A and 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. By judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 the learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d further imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under section 498A IPC. The Appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each i/d further imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the Appellants have filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary to decide these appeals are as under:- The Appellant No.1 Tanaji is the husband of deceased Sanjubai. Whereas the Appellant No.2, Sarubai is mother in law of the deceased and Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!