Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 arises out of Reference Application Nos.306 and 307 filed by the assessee in respect of a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th March, 1996 in ITA Nos.6351/B/93 and 1717/B/94 pertaining to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. (A) The Tribunal on the assessee's application drew up a statement of case and referred the following eight questions and an additional question for the year 199091 for the opinion of this Court:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion concerning clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 24 of the Memorandum of Association of the assessee are not objects of general public utility and thereby do not fall with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14/08/2012 passed below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 2012 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad which is confirmed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Osmanabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No.100 of 2012 by its judgment and order dated 23/09/2013. 3. The petitioners herein, are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs who are brothers inter-se have filed R.C.S. No.408 of 2012 for declaration that, they are the owners of the suit properties described in Schedule 'A' to 'C' in para-1 of the plaint by virtue of sale deed dated 04/02/1953. They have also sought for a declaration that, defendant No.1 Municipal Council is a rank trespasser on the suit properties described in Schedule 'B' and 'C' and further declaration that, construction of building of Shopping Malls on the said schedule 'B' and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since they are inter-connected and the suit property claimed by the Government is the same, in both the suits. 2. First Appeal No. 238/2003 has been preferred by the legal representatives of Yeshwantrao D. Chowgule against the judgment, order and decree dated 09/06/2003, passed by learned District Judge South Goa, in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1981(New) / Civil Suit No. 08 of 1974(Old), whereby the said suit filed by said Yeshwantrao Chowgule against the Government of India; Government of Goa; Forest Officers of Goa Government (defendants no. 1 to 5), Comunidade of Balli (defendant no. 6) and one Chandulal Chotai (defendant no. 7) was dismissed. 3. First Appeal No. 45 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment, order and decree dated 03/03/2004, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, in Civil Suit No. 158/1981(New) / 04/1980(Old), whereby the said suit filed by Union of India, through Development ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has impugned the judgment and order dated 14th October 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.39 of 1993 thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts which give rise to and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus:- (i) Shri Nanasaheb Ghadge (PW No.1) was police patil of village of Inamgaon. That on 19.8.1992 at about 7 p.m. one person by name Balu Machale had come to him and told that his uncle Sarjerao (appellant) has killed his wife Smt. Nanda by hitting stone. Shri Nanasaheb Ghadge (PW No.1) went to the spot of incident which was situated at Deokhal Vasti. He went to the house of the appellant. The appellant was present at the spot. He made enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC648Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited filed a revision application dated 12-9-1978 under old Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P and is to be treated as an appeal before us. The appellants pray for setting aside the demand for Rs. 7,92,405.77 raised by the Assistant Collector of 'Central Excise, Goa, for availing of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned Advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants were manufacturing fertilisers under the brand name 'Sampurna' in which they were using1 imported Muriate of Potash as raw material. The import of Muriate of Potash was canalised through M/s. Indian Potash Limited, and they were selling the same to all consumers including the appellants at the pooled price. The pooled price did not give particulars of the countervailing duty paid by M/s. Indian Potash Limited on Muriate of Potash. Towards the end of 1975-7...
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 : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)47ITD103(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals )-XIX, Bombay, pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The grievance of the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the inclusion of Rs. 10,99,024 in the income of assessee. on the basis of excise duty refund received by the assessee.3. The assessee was sanctioned, during the assessment year under consideration, refund of Rs. 10,24,652 by the Central Excise Department, Bombay, vide letter dated December 20, 1982, which was encashed by the assessee. In addition to this amount, he also received another refund of Rs. 74,371 during the year, which makes up to a total of Rs. 10,99,024 received by the assessee in the entire year as refund from the Excise Department. The Income-tax Officer observed that the assessee has shown refund of Rs. 10,99,024 as liability in the balance-sheet. On being asked to explain, the assessee has mentioned that he paid exci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The above captioned two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Circle-1(1) Kalyan passed under s. 158BC of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the block period commencing from 1st April, 1985, to 8th February, 1996. (IT (S&S) A. No. 50/Bom/97 has been filed against the computation sheet dt. 28th February, 1997, while IT (S&S)/Bom/97 is against the speaking order of the even date. Since both the appeals relate to the same block period, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed by this common order.2. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential/shopping projects in the name and style of Vikas Builders.The assessee filed his regular returns of income and assessment was made upto asst. yr. 1995-96. On 8th February, 1996, a search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT {PER A.M. THIPSAY, J.} : 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30th May, 1991 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.21 of 1990 convicting the Appellants, who were accused in the said case, of the offences punishable under Sections 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 302 IPC and 325 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, sentenced the Appellants (each of them) as follows :- (a). For the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.200/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten days; (b). For the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.300/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days; (c). For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(10)ECC71
1. The appeal arises out of the order bearing No. M-709/TH-114/85 dated 2-5-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The cross objections are not cross objections in the eyes of law. No relief, as such, is claimed. It contains the arguments of the Respondent in the above appeal as to why the appeal should not be allowed. As a matter of fact, Shri Nariman did not contend that cross-objections filed by the Respondent in the appeal are cross-objections in the eyes of law, or that any order is required to be passed on the cross objections.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as under:- The Respondent M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (for short The Reliance) have their factory at Patelganga, District Raigad, Maharashtra holding a Central Excise Licence L-4 dated 6-7-1982 for the manufacture of polyester filament yarn falling under Tariff Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Kalyan Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!