Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)72ITD155(Mum.)
1. The appellant, Smt. Rajrani Gupta, runs a sex and health clinic named "M/s Kayakalp International" and a beauty clinic named "Monalisa". Her husband, Dr. Sohanlal Gupta, is a dental surgeon. Her son, Dr. Arunkumar Gupta, is also a qualified doctor, being a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines & Surgery (B.A.M.S.). Her daughter-in-law, Dr.Renu Gupta, is also a qualified doctor and has the same qualifications as that of her husband, Dr. Arunkumar Gupta. There is another entity called "Dr. Sohanlal Gupta (HUF)" in which all the abovementioned persons are members. The entire family was residing at Bathinda, Punjab, upto mid-July 1991. Because of the terrorist activity in the State of Punjab, they moved to Bombay in 1991, where the appellant has been running the aforesaid sex and health and beauty clinics. Her family members have also been working with her as salaried employees.She has set up three branches of her sex and health clinic in Mumbai.The first one was set up at Borivali in 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The Hon'ble President, ITAT, vide order dated 7.8.2006 has constituted this Bench to adjudicate the following issue: Whether in the light of the decision in 232 ITR 2 it must be held that mesnc profit received by the assessee is revenue income chargeable to tax.as well as to dispose off the appeal of the assessee containing the following grounds: (1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax. (Appeals (CIT(A)[ erred in holding that the mesnc profit of Rs. 34,57,01,137/- received by the Appellant pursuant to the consent decree dated 08.01.2002 constitutes revenue receipt assessable to tax and consequently, in confirming the AO's order bringing the same to tax.P. Mariappa Gounder v. CIT and DCIT Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SOT 918 (Del) mesne profits constitute taxable revenue receipts. (3) He further erred in this connection in holding that paragraphs 28 to 31 of the Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2004 pertaining to block assessment were not the operative parts of the Tribunal's order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainant- Manik alias Gangajirao Zugara More has filed this complaint against Rajasthani and Gujrathi Charitable Foundations Poona Hospital and Research Centre-O.P.No.1 and also against Port Trust Hospital, Wadala, Mumbai-O.P.No.2 alleging medical negligence on their part in respect of treatment given by both hospitals to his son-Mahendra More. 2. According to the complainant, Mahendra slipped off his motorcycle on Sinhagad Road at about 10.30 p.m. on 23/02/1997. One passerby took him to Madhukar Hospital on Sinhagad Road and since his son has having head injury, he was brought to Poona Hospital/O.P.No.1 and admitted in the said hospital. He was admitted in Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.) of O.P.No.1 and necessary treatment was given. According to the complainant, his relative used to wait day and night outside I.C.U. to monitor the health of Mahendra. Necessary medicines, injections and equipments were brought. His son was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member This is a consumer complaint filed by Smt. Sabtri @ Savitri Agarwal, a resident of ChhattisgarhState. Complaint has been filed against the Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital and the Opponent No.2, Dr. Sudeep Gupta also working with the Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital. According to the Complainant, she is a housewife aged 59 years old. The Opponent No.1, TataMemorialHospital is a leading cancer treatment institute in India and is under the control of Atomic Energy Administration of Government of India. The Opponent No.2, Dr. Sudeep Gupta is a leading doctor of gastro-intestinal ailments and he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Oncology with the Opponent No.1, Hospital. [2] According to the Complainant, on 14/3/2007 at her residence she suffered blood vomiting and she was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital known as SiddharthHospital where Dr. G. S. Agarwal gave her preliminary treatment and advised her to underg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Confirmation Case No.1 of 2012 has been submitted to us by the Sessions Court in view of the provisions of section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The Sessions Court was pleased to convict the accused under section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and both the accused were sentenced to death and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each on both counts and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A further direction was given that both be hanged by neck till they are dead. The Sessions Court was also pleased to convict accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under 376(2) read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and both were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were also further convicted for the offence punish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)106TTJ(Mum.)535
2. The first and second ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,79,876 in respect of employer's contribution and Rs. 4,05,635 in respect of employees' contribution to PF/FPF/ESIC paid by the assessee beyond the grace period allowed by the Central Government.3. We heard the rival submissions. The Tribunal is constantly taking the view that the employees' contribution if not paid within the due date extended by the grace period, the same is not allowable. As such, we remand the matter back to the file of AO as to verify whether the payments were made within the grace period. If so paid, it may be allowed. Coming to the employer's contribution, Tribunal is taking the view constantly that if the payment is made within (beyond) the year but before the due date for filing the return, to this extent assessee's claim is to be allowed. AO may verify the date of payment.If it is found that it is paid within (beyond)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)70ITD330(Mum.)
1. A group of migrants, in the aftermath of partition, led by Mr.Parmanand Deepchand Hinduja came and settled in Bombay. They felt the need for medical care. These persons banded together and on account of their efforts, a small outdoor clinic was opened in December, 1951. In February, 1953, the clinic was converted into an indoor hospital with 30 beds which was progressively increased to 70. In 1954, the persons who started the clinic in a small way, formed a society which was named the "National Health and Education Society". It was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 13th April, 1954. In 1963 a new 100 bed hospital was commissioned in the same plot of land. Gradually this 100 bed hospital increased its activities and in 1972 ventured into medical research. The research institution also came to be recognised by the Government of India. The name of the hospital, after the advent of the research centre, was changed from National Hospital to "P.D.Hinduja National Hospita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment : By this chamber summons filed by the defendant, it is prayed that the plaint in this suit be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in appropriate court at Chennai and in the alternative to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation and that the plaint does not disclose cause of action for the reliefs claimed in the suit. 2. Some of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this chamber summons are summarized as under : (a) By an Equipment Lease Agreement dated 30th June, 1992 entered into between Plaintiff and defendant, the defendant gave on lease one Himson scragg SDS8 Texturising machine (hereinafter referred to as the said machine) for the period of five years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The said machine was installed at the factory premises of Garware Nylons Limited, an associate company of the plaintiff at Ahmednagar and the said associate company was using the said machine. The registere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)39ITD328(Mum.)
1. These are three appeals by the assessee against the consolidated order of the CIT (A), dated 10-7-1985. Most of the grounds raised in all these three appeals are common grounds. These appeals are, therefore, dealt with and disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The appellant here is M/s. Atlas Copco MCT AB assessed to tax as a non-resident company. The company has been taxed for these three years on royalties amounting to Rs. 4,46,570, Rs. 4,80,834 and Rs. 4,52,158 receivable by it as royalties under Clause 1(b) of the agreement entered into by it with M/s. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Such assessment has been confirmed by the CIT (A) whose order is now challenged before us. Shri S.E. Dastur, learned counsel for the appellant firstly took us painstakingly through the agreement that the appellant had entered into with M/s. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. at Stockholm on 25-3-1977. He argued that Clause 2 of the agreement provided that the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as Swedish c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD106(Mum.)
1. Assessee is a firm of Solicitors. It is operating as a partnership firm in the United Kingdom and is tax resident in UK. Assessee was appointed as English Legal Advisors for the following three infrastructure projects in India : (1) Bhadiavati Power Station Project--It is a three-way joint venture for the construction of a power plant with three participants, viz. M/s Ispat Industries Ltd., a resident of India; M/s GEC Alathom Group, a non-resident and M/s Electricite de France, another non-resident. These three participants were the clients of the assessee-firm. (2) Vizag Power Project--It is a two-way joint venture for the construction of a power plant with two participants, viz. M/s National Power pcl and M/s Machen. Both the non-resident participants were its clients. (3) Rawa Oil and Gas Fields Project--The only client of the assessee was a company resident in Australia.2. Assessee did not file the return for the relevant year of assessment in the normal course. On 5th May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!