Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)83ITD511(Mum.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee on 1st Nov., 1993 and 31st March, 1994, respectively for asst. yrs, 1989-90 and 1990-91 were decided by the order of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'B', Mumbai, dt. 29th March, 1996, along with Department's appeal for asst. yr. 1989-90, being ITA No. 1810/Bom/1993, and assessee's cross-objection No.1035/Bom/1994. Thereafter the assesses filed two miscellaneous applications in relation to the assessee's appeals, being ITA Nos.6351/Bom/1993 and 1717/Bom/1994. These miscellaneous applications were rejected, whereupon the assessee filed Writ Petn. No. 2490 of 2000 before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The assessee also moved two reference applications under Section 256(1), being RA Nos. 306 & 307/Mum/1996, whereupon reference was made to Hon'ble Bombay High Court for their esteemed opinion. Hon'ble Bombay High Court have thereafter delivered judgment dt. 15th March, 2001 [reported as M. Visvesvaiaya Industrial Research & Development Centre v. ITAT], ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1011; 2002(2)BomCR41
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition pray that the Government memorandum dated 14-2-1976 (Exh. F) and Government Resolution dated 9-1-1987 (Exh. G) and the Notices dated 26-9-1990 (Exhs. H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 and H-5) be declared illegal and void and, accordingly, be set aside and quashed. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is the company registered under the Companies Act and petitioner No. 2 is Director of the said company. They claim to be lessees of respondent No. 1 viz. Municipal Corporation of City of Thane (for short 'the Corporation') in respect of Khartan plot Nos. 1 and 2, Survey No. 114 situate at Thane. It is the petitioner's case that in or about 1943 the petitioners predecessor in title constructed five structures on the said plot of land with the permission of Thane Municipal Corporation, out of which four structures were meant to be used for factory, while fifth structure was to be used for as the residence of the Manager of the factory. The petitioners claim to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR43; (2002)IIILLJ277Bom
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above petitions agreed that the decision in Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1991 will decide the fate of all the above petitions. We have, therefore, confined the consideration of facts to Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1991.2. The petitioner is a registered trade union, representing, inter alia, 235 security personnel, listed at exhibit A to the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'registered security guards or as security personnel'). Respondent No. 1 is a statutory corporation, initially established under the International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971. Under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 the Central Government constituted the Airports Authority of India. Under Section 13(1) the undertakings of the International Airports Authority and the National Airports Authority were transferred to and vested in the Airports Authority, Under Section 13(2) the undertaking of the IAAI and NAA i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR723; 2002(4)BomCR497; (2002)4BOMLR382; 2002(4)MhLj758
A.P. Shah, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seek to challenge the Notification dated 15-9-2001 issued by the State of Maharashtra amending the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, framed under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the Security Guards Act. 2. The petitioners are trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and have as their members security guards employed in various establishments in Mumbai and Thane. The principal challenge to the impugned notification is on the ground that the notification is ultra vires the provisions of the Security Guards Act. In order to understand the challenge in the petitions, it is necessary to briefly refer to the objects and the various provisions of the Security Guards Act and the Scheme framed under Section 4(1) of the said Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)86ITD791(Mum.)
1. The assessee in these appeals is Raymond Ltd., a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of suitings, engineers' steel files and rasps and cement in India. In order to muster funds for the purpose of putting BD facilities for the production of cold-rolled steel products including sillicon products, the Greenfield Textile project and the normal capital expenditure requirements, the company proposed to issue Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs) in the international market.Two types of GDRs were contemplated--(1) International GDRs which were offered to investors outside the United States of America (USA) and India restricted to offshore transactions, and (2) GDRs under Rule 144A of the Securities Regulations of the USA, offered in the USA to "qualified institutional buyers" (QIBs). The total number of GDRs issued was 37,68,844. The issue price of each GDR was US $ 15.92. Each GDR represented 2 shares of the company of the face value of Rs. 10 per share. Approximately US $58 mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)86ITD714(Mum.)
This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXV, Mumbai, dated 6-10-2000 for the assessment year 1997-98.The grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee reads as follows : (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the Assessing Officer's rejection of the Appellant's claim under Section 80RR on the footing that the Appellant's case does not fall within the ken of Section 80RR. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in this connection in holding that the Appellant is not an 'artist' as postulated in Section 80RR. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in this connection in lending a restrictive and narrow meaning to the word 'artist' as being confined to creative arts, and in any event, grossly erred in holding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. Those two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s. Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable. On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)87ITD537(Mum.)
1. These two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable, On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had been so created as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(5)BomCR548; 2004(2)MhLj419
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions, waive service. Heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.3. This batch of writ petitions basically challenges the orders passed by the trial Court either allowing the defendant to file the written statement after the period prescribed under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') or disallowing the defendant from doing so on the ground that it was not presented within such period. The question, therefore, that falls for my consideration in these writ petitions is whether after the 2002 amendment to Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code upon expiry of a period of 90 days from the service of the writ of summons upon the defendant, the defendant is wholly and absolutely barred from filing his written statement. In other words, whether the defendant cannot,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)BomCR590; (2004)189CTR(Bom)226
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since a common question of law and facts arises in all the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The order rejecting the claim for interest on interest is sought to be challenged while contending that the petitioners are entitled to be paid with the interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum on the total amount of refund, including the interest accrued thereon from the day such refund amount became due and payable till the date of actual payment, in terms of Sections 214(1), 214(1A), and 244(1A) read with Section 240 and Section 244(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and in the alternative, assuming that no such interest on interest is payable under any of the provisions of the said Act, then the same shall be ordered to be paid in exercise of writ jurisdiction since the amount of interest payable under Section 214(1) read with Sections 214(1A) and 244(1A) of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!