Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)78ITD51(Mum.)
1. The assesses, an individual, is carrying on business of construction activities, in his own name and in the names of various partnership firms, where he is a partner. He has also dividend income, interest income, salaries from Private Limited Companies and Capital Gains. The Assessing Officer has pointed out in para 6 of his order that the assessee's construction activities are mainly in Mira Road and Bhayender. It has also been pointed out that the assessee also indulges in advancing loans to various builders and others on a heavy interest.The Assessing Officer has also stated that the seized books indicate that the assessee was receiving huge cash premium in selling flats which is re-invested either in purchase of flats or in giving advances to various parties on interest. The Assessing Officer has also pointed out that the assessee admitted in his statement recorded under section 131 that he is advancing cash loans. The assessee has also admitted in answer to question No. 2, whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(5)BomCR443
R.K. Batta, J.1. The wife of the detenu has filed this petition seeking to quash and set aside detention order dated 20-12-1999 which was served on the detenu on 8-1-2000. Reference was made to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, the said 'Act') on 17-1-2000. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 22-12-1999 and the Government confirmed the order of detention on 21-2-2000.2. The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act read with Government Order, Home Department (Special), No. DDS. 1399/4/SPL-3 (B) dated 19th November, 1999. The same was approved by the State Government on 28-12-1999. The detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 8-1-2000 itself. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that since the year 1979,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)411; 2001(2)BomCR48; (2001)2BOMLR84; (2001)1CompLJ299(Bom)
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. Both the summons for judgments and the chamber summons are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. Shri Bookwalla and Shri Naphade advanced main submissions for their respective parties in all the matters.2. I have to perform an act of balancing two prejudices, one the plaintiffs in the above suits and the defendants who are accused before the criminal proceedings pending against them under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiffs have resorted to both the remedies, civil as well as criminal against the defendants, civil proceedings for recovery of the debt due from the defendants and criminal for penalising them for dishonouring of the cheque issued by them in favour of the plaintiffs, purporting to be repayment of the loan advanced to them by the plaintiffs.3. The sketch outline of facts in both the cases is as follows :-The plaintiffs have filed the above suits against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(127)ELT108Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Sachin Textiles Pvt. Ltd. had filed Appeal No. E/1215/94-D along with stay petition No. E/Stay-696/94-D.S. In disposal of the stay application, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as a precondition to hearing of the appeal. Later, vide Order No.664/96-D, dated 6-11-96 [2000 (126) E.L.T. 1168 (Tri.)] the appeal was allowed. On 16-12-96, the appellants requested the Department to refund the pre-deposit. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order holding that the amount deposited in pursuance of CEGAT's order would not fall under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants on 18-11-98 once again lodged the refund claim. After substantial correspondence and agitation finally on 23-4-99 the claim was sanctioned and the cheque was issued on 24-5-99. The appellants then requested for interest at 15% per annum on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2000]82ITD27(Mum)
ORDERBenchAs common facts and issues are involved in these four appeals, the same were argued together by the common authorised representative of the assessees and the Departmental Representative. The same are being decided by this consolidated order for convenience.2. These four are cross appeals filed by the assessees as well as revenue in relation to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1988-89 in the case of two assessees.3. Facts of the case leading to these appeals as mentioned in the penalty orders and the impugned appellate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), briefly, are that these two ladies were connected with one Shri Harshad S. Mehta. There was a search under section 132 of the Act on 27-9-1990. During the course of the search, Shri Harshad Mehta made a statement that in the absence of updated books of account, the source of investment in various assets might not be properly known to them and, therefore, the members of the family made a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom65; 2002(2)BomCR300; 2002(2)MhLj305
A.P. Shah, J.1. The constitutional validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which is hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act, lays down :'Section 3(1) -- This Act shall not apply -- (a)....... (b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of Rupees one crore or more. Explanation. -- For the purpose of this clause the expression 'bank' means; -- (i) the State Bank of India constituted under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR75; (2002)1BOMLR62; 2002(2)MhLj631
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. All the above petitions raise certain common issues of law and involve similar facts, hence we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1749 of 1999 Cipla Limited and Anr. v. Union of India, and Ors. the brief facts and submissions are as under :-- 3. The First Petitioner Company is a domestic pharmaceutical company which manufactures and sells various pharmaceutical bulk drugs and formulations. The present petition is filed challenging :-- (a) The totally arbitrary, unjustified and mala fide refusal by the Respondents to issue the exemption notification to the petitioners to which they are entitled, and which has already been directed to be issued exempting Salbutamol and its formulations manufactured by the firstPetitioners from the ambit of price control in view of the new process developed by the petitioners by virtue of its indigenous R & D, and in view of Drugs (Price Control) Order of 1987 providing for such an exemption,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD369(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals by the assessee and the Department have been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai, dt. 31st Jan., 1992 for the asst. yr. 1985-86. We are disposing of these appeals with one consolidated order as the issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience and brevity.2. The assessee is a limited company incorporated under the laws of Italy. The company was engaged in the business of engineering, transportation, installation of platforms, raisers, pipe laying and testing site services etc. During the year, the assessee entered into two sub-contracts, one with M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Korea (hereinafter referred to as HHI) on 5th Dec., 1982 and another with Mazagaon Dock Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as MDL). Both the HHI and MDL had entered into main contract with Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as ONGC). Under the said sub-contracts, HHI and MDL were obliged to discharge corporate tax liability o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1; 2002(3)BomCR219
H. L. Gokhale, J.1. All the writ petitions in Group (A) above invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions with respect to the correctness and legality of the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test (MH-CET 2001) conducted by the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Medical Education and Research of the State of Maharashtra and the results of this Common Entrance Test. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Original Side of this High Court whereas some of them are filed on the Appellate Side and one writ petition is arising out of a letter sent by a student Miss Priyanka Dinkar Borde from Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, which letter has been converted into a suo motu writ petition. These petitions raise questions with respect to the legality and validity of the results of this examination which were declared on 17th May, 2001 and the consequent admissions to various medical courses. These petitions are undoubtedly of urgent nature. All o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR419
Singh, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals has been preferred by the several defendants against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in Notices of Motion No. 3120 of 1997 and 3932 of 1998 in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2001] 34 SCL 1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the substantial acquisitions of shares of defendant No. 12 by some of the defendants on the ground of the acquisitions being in breach of regulations framed by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which had come into force with effect from 7-11-1994. The learned Judge, by the impugned common order, made the notices of motion absolute in part. It was held that the plaintiffs do have a prima facie right to maintain the suit to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the disputed shares is void being in breach of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations, 1994 ('the 1994 Regulations'). It has...
Tag this Judgment!