Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)107TTJ(Mum.)268
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dt.28th Sept., 1998 of the learned CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai pertaining to the asst. yr. 1995-96. Grounds raised in this appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that Rule 115 of IT Rules, 1962 applies for the purpose of computing depreciation in the assessee's case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that depreciation should be calculated on the actual cost of the assets based on the rate prevalent on the last date of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration without considering the Hon'ble Court's decision in the case of CESC Ltd. v. CIT holding that depreciation is required to be calculated by applying prescribed rate on WDV of the block of assets with actual cost of the asset determined at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of acquis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)11ITD519(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal on various grounds mainly relating to the assess ability of compensation received from the Maharashtra Government in February 1979 in respect of 181 acres of land at Oshiwara near Jogeshwari, compensation received from the Bombay Municipal Corporation for a piece of land at Parel and balance of sale proceeds received from Oshiwara Land Development Corporation (P.) Ltd. in respect of 542 acres of land, as business income.2. At the time of hearing on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 28-6-1984, the counsel for the assessee had sought leave to take some additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment. The grounds being purely legal were admitted. There are as many as eight additional grounds. For the sake of convenience, we will take up the additional grounds first. The counsel for the assessee has grouped the additional grounds into four effective grounds. It is contended that : (i) the order of the assessment made by the ITO under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)96ITD9(Mum.)
This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1997-98, being in respect of order under section 171, is directed against the order of CIT (A), Mumbai, dt.. 24-9-2003, whereby the learned CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeal upholding the assessing officer's order dated 27-12-2002, rejecting the assessee's application dated 19-4-2002, under section 171 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The facts, in brief, as ascertainable from the material on record, are that one Mohanlal Kishore Shah (Mohanlal K. Shah), Karta of Mohanlal K.Shah, HUF had acquired a plot No. 298, admeasuring 947 sq. yards on 12th Road, Khar, Mumbai-54, on lease from Government of Bombay an 20-10-1926. He constructed a two storied building thereon; the total constructed area being 1/3rd of the total area of the plot and this position of the structure remained there till sale of the same by Harish B. Shah on 17-4-1996, to M/s Narad Builders (P) Ltd. Mohanlal K. Shah expired on 4-10-1954, leavin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)304ITR314(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2000-01, are disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No: 1429/Mum/2005:- The first ground of objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Assessee filed the return on 29.05.2000 declaring income at Rs. 9,55,370/- along with audited accounts and other documents. The reopening was done under Section 147 of the Act, vide order sheet entry dated 12.01.2004. The reasoning for the reopening is reproduced at Page 1 and 2 of the assessment order, which reads as under: The assessee company has filed the return of income on 29.11.2000, which has been accepted Under Section 143(1) of the Act. The perusal of the Balance-sheet reveals that the capital reserves has increased by Rs. 1.54 crores. Further, the assessee has enclosed a copy of Memorandum Of Understanding dated 24.08.1999 exec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a Transfer Pricing Order dated 31st October, 2011, passed by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing (hereinafter referred to as the TPO) to the extent that it relates to the addition of Rs.84,34,39,52,555/- on account of two unreported international transactions and a Draft Assessment Order dated 29th December, 2011, passed by respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as the AO or Assessing Officer). The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 the AO to revise the Draft Assessment Order, after excluding the said transfer price adjustment. Lastly, the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the impugned orders. 2. The two unreported transactions are the sale of the call centre business b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD380(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Central-IV, Bombay and pertains to the assessment year 1985-86.2. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3), read with Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accounting year of the assessee ended on 30-6-1984. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is following the mercantile system of accounting. It filed its return of income for the relevant year of assessment on 28-6-1985, reflecting therein income of Rs. 3,84,14,220. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26,20,51,000 in the total income of the assessee under the head "Premium on sale of cigarettes". The Assessing Officer deducted the amount of commission and trading income alleged to be reintroduced by means of hawala entries and advertisement expenses alleged to be used out of secret bank accounts. The assessee being aggrieved of the assessment ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. In Sessions Case No.100 of 2012 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has awarded death sentence to the accused no.1 therein, the proceedings in the said case, have been therefore forwarded to this Court for confirmation under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused no.1-Yuvraj Kashinath Sabale and accused no.2- Pankaj Maruti Sandanshiv have also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014. So also accused no.3Maheshkumar Rameshchandra Varma has also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2014. As all the matters are arising out of onejudgment, the arguments in these matters are simultaneously heard and we find it expedient to decide all these cases by common judgment. However, since the very conviction has been challenged by the convicts, the only proper course would be to first decide the Criminal Appeals so f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(76)LC77Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals raise a common issue, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. Appeal No. E/2738/89 has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 25.11.1989 passed by the Collector (Appeals) rejecting the claim of classification of the product "Chassis with Cowl" under sub-heading No. 8706.40 i.e. under the description chassis fitted with engine or the motor vehicles for the transport of goods. The department on subsequent verification after the classification list had been confirmed, noticed that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle for transport of goods but it was cleared for manufacture of passenger type of vehicles and hence on the basis of investigation and after carrying out detailed adjudication the lower authorities confirmed the classification under sub-heading No. 8706.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. In this case the show cause notice was issued on 28.8.1986, which was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector by his order dt.6.2.1987 and has al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)60ITD513(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a limited company, has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 28-9-1993 passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263 of the Act and on merits as well.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Pardiwala, referred to the notice of the Commissioner which has been placed at page 26 of the paperbook. He submitted that the Commissioner in this notice has referred to the search and seizure operation carried out at the business premises of the assessee on the 21st and 22nd August, 1990 resulting in seizure of books of account, loose papers, note-books and diaries. The notice also stated that the statement of full-time Director, Mr. N.M. Savani was taken and that he had admitted that the jottings on the loose papers, note-books and diaries represented part of the undisclosed income. It was further noted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009. 5 2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record. 3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows: At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered severe injuries and, ultimately,...
Tag this Judgment!