Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-29-2008
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Mum.)353
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee and directed against the order of CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai dt. 8th Dec., 2004 for asst. yr. 2001-02.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the materials placed on record and applicable legal position.3. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the gifts of Rs. 1,22,70,795 received by the assessee on his 80th birthday as his income from business and profession.4. Ground No. 2 is argumentative in nature in support of ground No. 1, hence, no specific decision thereon would be given as the same would be dealt with ground No. 1.5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual who filed return of income showing income from other sources. As borne out from the assessment order, it is noted that assessee is a well known social reformer and philosopher and lacs of followers are spread all over the world. The AO from the note enclosed with the computation of income chart (found) that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-11-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR321; (2008)110BOMLR2344
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the trustees of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust ('Trust' for short), which is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('B.P.T. Act for short). Since both the petitions challenge the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner ('Jt. C.C.' for short) dated 3-6-2008, both the petitions are heard together finally at the stage of admission and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The impugned order dated 3-6-2008 is an interim order passed by the Jt. C.C. in an application filed by a permanent trustee of the Trust under Section 41D of the B.P.T. Act. The said application was filed seeking removal of nine trustees of the Trust inter alia on the ground that the said trustees during the period from 2001 to 2006 had siphoned off the Trust funds running into several crores of rupees and further they have committed act of malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of Trust, gross negligence etc. which are detrimental to the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
Reported in : (2008)(128)ECC199
1. The factory of the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE pipes and fittings falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was visited by preventive officers of central excise on 8.9.1998 and on verification of the stock of finished goods, shortage of stock compared to the balance recorded in the RG1 register was detected. The finished goods, i.e. HDPE pipes of various qualities involving duty of Rs. 3,75,791/-, were found short. The assessee paid central excise duty on such shortage. Further scrutiny of records revealed that the assessees cleared their goods, viz. HDPE pipes sprinkle irrigation, to various depots all over India, from where they finally sold to customers/dealers. Price declaration of the finished goods was filed by the assessees and it was noticed that the assessees had charged a higher price for sprinkler coupler than declared in annexure-II. It was also found that they were charging their customer fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-05-2008
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR1595
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Special Case No. 1 of 2000 was tried by the Sessions Judge, Pune, who was also a Special Judge for the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act. Seven accused persons faced trial for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324 read with Sections 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They also faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(5) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act. By his judgment and order dated 30th April, 2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, all of them were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. They were also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR817; 2009(1)MhLj371
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By filing this petition, the petitioner, who is a student, has raised an important issue for consideration of this Court as to whether at the time of taking Common Entrance Test ('CET' for short) examination, any deviation can be made by the respondents in the matter of giving marks contrary to Rules and instructions given in this behalf.3. The petitioner has cleared her HSC Examination from the Maharashtra State and Higher Secondary Education Board, Pune and secured 62% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The State of Maharashtra, for the purpose of admission for medical and dental courses framed rules and introduced CET. As per the said Rules, the duration of the examination is three hours. The method of answering the questions is also prescribed in the Rules. As per the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR521; [2008(119)FLR235]; (2008)IIILLJ925Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a writ petition by the employer challenging the order of the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated August 19, 2004 rejecting their application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner-employer sought approval of its order dated June 24, 2002 whereby respondent-workman was removed from service. The workman was served with charge sheet dated April 4/May 1, 1996 for allegedly unauthorisedly opening the Short Haul Operations Department (S.H.O.D.) office with a view td disposal of the old vehicles of the office. According to the charge sheet he was apprehended in the process of removing one jeep with the help of two other persons. He had already removed six vehicles, i.e. two Maruti 800, one Ambassador car, one Matador and two jeeps. Since the dispute pertaining to conditions of service of workmen of Indian Airlines was pending before the National Tribunal, the petitioner applied under Section 33(2)(b) for removing the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2008
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR3069
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition is directed against Order dated 19.12.2002 by the Chief of Naval Staff upon a judicial review of trial of petitioner by Court martial whereby punishment of 'dismissal with disgrace' imposed upon the petitioner was reduced by the Chief of Naval Staff to dismissal simplicitor.2. Facts which are relevant for deciding this petition are as under:It is not in dispute that since joining the Indian Navy on 26th June 1978, the petitioner had an unblemished service record and received timely promotions. Since 16.02.1999, petitioner was posted at the Naval Air Squadron at Dabolim Airport, Goa. He was serving in April 2001 as the Master Chief in charge of Air Store/Naval Store. On 04.04.2001, requisition for a spare part of a Naval Aircraft was placed. Proper spare could be secured only on 06.04.2001.3. Petitioner was not on duty on 06.04.01. At 7.30 p.m., he received a message that he had to report immediately to Lt. Commander A. Muthu. On reaching the office of Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : May-23-2008
1. The assessee and revenue are in cross appeals against the order of ld. CIT(A) Cen VII, dated 26/11/03 passed for the block period starting from 1/4/90 and ending on 24/8/2000.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset pointed out that in Ground No. 1 assessee has pleaded that notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued within 12-months from the date assessee has filed the return. Therefore, as per the proviso appended to Section 143(2) the A O is precluded to pass the impugned order under Section 158BC of the A O. The assessment order deserves to be declared as null and void and not sustainable in law. The Ld. Counsel for the assesses while taking us through the facts submitted that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 24/8/2000. It was concluded on 3/10/2000. A notice under Section 158BC was issued on 1/2/01. This was served upon the assessee on 10/2/01. In response to the notice assessee has field...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-05-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR133; (2008)110BOMLR1819
A.A. Kumbhakoni, J.1. Lord Siva in Guru Gita (Skanda Puranam) praises the Universal Guru thus:Gurur Brahma, Gurur Vishnu Gurur Devo Maheshwara Guru Saakshaat Parabrahma Tasmai Sree Gurave Namah.(Guru is Brahma, Guru is Vishnu and Guru is the God Siva. Guru verily is the Param Brahma -- the Supreme Being. I (Siva) salute that auspicious Guru). This is the reason why we Indians bow to Guru -- a TEACHER and place a teacher on a pedestal just below the parents. The character and conduct of a teacher is expected to be more like a `Rishi' and as loco-perentis. We will shortly refer to two Supreme Court judgements in this regard. 2. This occasion to remind ourselves of these expectations as to 'the status and dignity of a teacher' has arisen in view of this petition which is filed by a male teacher against whom such charges are held proved which allege Moral Turpitude and Misconduct by such teacher involving exhibition of immoral sexual behaviour towards girl students of the 1st respondent co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-2008
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR390; 2008(111)BomLR357; 2009(2)MhLj187
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally by consent of parties. This Petition is directed against the order dated 23rd August, 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('the DRAT' for short).Facts3. The petitioners were partners of M/s. Sohal Engineering Works ('the said firm' for short), having its office at Sohal Industrial Estate, LBS Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai 400 078. The respondent is one of the nationalised banks of the country, having its branch office at Mumbai ('the bank' for short).4. The bank advanced credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 56 lacs to the said firm from time to time against the mortgage of their immovable property, being plot of land bearing Survey No. 200 (part) CTS No. 286/1 to 2 of Bhandup village, Mumbai Suburban district, together with the factory building and other structures, errections and godowns standing thereon ('the said mortgaged proper' for short).5. The said firm had also execute...
Tag this Judgment!