Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-19-1999
Reported in : (2000)75ITD250(Mum.)
1. In view of the common grounds involved in these 5 appeals filed by the same assessee, they are consolidated in the common order for the sake of convenience. These appeals have been filed by the assessee Shri R. B. Singh of M/s. Machinery Sales and Services, Bombay against the common order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1980-81.2. The assessee is carrying on business in the purchase and sale of textile machinery parts under the name M/s. Machinery Sales and Services. The assessee filed returns of income for the Assessment Years 1975-76 to 1980-81 declaring the total income as shown below : 3. The assessments were completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act on total income as under : 4. The Assessment orders were made on 27-3-1986 for all the 5 years under consideration. The assessee later filed returns of income on 17-3-1987 showing the total incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-25-1999
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 : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-27-1999
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR244; II(2000)DMC292
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Two couples, Indian citizens, professing the Christian faith, applied to this Court for being appointed as guardians under the Guardians & Wards Act. In the course of the proceedings they amended their petition, to seek a prayer that the children be given to them in adoption. The petitioners being Christians are presently only entitled to be appointed as guardians. They do not fall within the definition of 'Hindu' as defined in the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. A question immediately arose,whether a civilised State committed to the Rule of law, governed by a written Constitution and signatory to International Conventions on the Rights of a child, could deny to a section of its own citizens the right to adopt a child and to give that child, a home, a name and nationality. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures equality before law to all citizens. Non-arbitrariness is the hallmark of this Article. On 26th November, 1949 we gave to ourselves, a Bill of Ri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-14-1999
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT97Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the party's appeal against the above captioned impugned order dated 23-7-1998 praying for setting aside the same, with deemed suitable relief.1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant imported a consignment of Teletherapy unit - Theratron 980C valued at Rs. 45,38,597 (assessable value) and filed Bill of Entry No. 9293/23-8-1989 claiming duty free clearance under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 by furnishing NMIC and CDEC No. NMI/ENGG/389/88/506, dated 23-8-1989 and Z-37011/ 16/88-MG, dated 21-10-1988. The goods were allowed clearance without payment of duty. Department found that the appellant failed to produce installation certificate in terms of para 4(iii) of the notification, and so goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act. Jurisdictional authority was requested to seize the same. It was found by it (jurisdictional authority) that the imported goods was found in the treatment room of the Importer's premises. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-25-1999
Reported in : (2000)241ITR43(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assessee, for asst. yr. 1992-93, had come up for hearing before 'A' Bench, Mumbai and on the recommendation of the Bench, the President constituted a Special Bench for deciding the appeal. The issue involved is : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first Appellate Authority was justified in upholding the order of the AO disallowing deduction under s. 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, with reference to gross convertible foreign exchange received by the assessee by way of fees for technical and consultancy services rendered by it to the parties abroad ?" 2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the appellant is an AOP and consists of nine public sector companies as its members. The appellant provides technical and consultancy services to various parties abroad. For asst. yr. 1992-93, for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1992, the assessee had claimed deduction under s.80-O of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,38,38,386 being 50 per cent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-29-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)ALLMR122; 2000(1)BomCR805; 2000(2)MhLj417
ORDERF. I. Rebello, J.1. The Decree Holders have moved this Court for leave to execute the decree under section 13 r/w. section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holders have annexed a certificate from the Master of Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, that the decree for a sum of US$ 1,609,135.00 plus interest/liquidated damages to be assessed, remains outstanding in the sum of US$ 1,457,230.30 with interest/liquidated damages to be assessed. The certificate is dated 5-10-1998. Exhibit 'C' is the Statement of Claim by the decree holders. 2. Judgment Debtors have filed their reply through the constituted attorney of judgment Debtor No. 2. The principle contentions as raised in the said reply is that a decree cannot be executed for the following reasons;i) That the consent given, based on which a decree was passed on admission was not a free consent; ii) That the decree violates the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; iii) That D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-31-1999
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR670; 1999CriLJ2194
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard all the learned Counsel; Mr. Bagaria for the petitioner-original accused, Dr. Chandrachud for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Tahilramani for respondent No. 3.2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Order dated 2nd February 1999, passed by the learned Special Judge for C.B.I., Greater Mumbai in Misc. Application No. 70 of 1999 for closure of prosecution evidence in Special Case No. 6 of 1989. Under the impugned Order, the learned Special Judge (Shri S.R. Mehra) has followed his earlier Order dated 2nd February 1999 in Misc. Application Nos. 1128 of 1998, 25 of 1999 and 26 of 1999 in Case No. 54 of 1988 and has rejected the prayer for closure of the prosecution case and/or acquittal of the petitioner. The prayer was made only on the ground that the charge for the offence punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was framed against the petitioner on 5t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-15-1999
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-1999
Reported in : (2000)(117)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals are filed by M/s. Mistry Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Mahesh J. Mistry against the impugned Order No. 42/MP/1993, dated 6-12-1993 praying for setting aside the same and for such other relief as deemed fit.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants have a factory at GIDC Saregaon Industrial Estate, Bhilad near Vapi in Balsar district in the state of Gujarat in a backward area where the transportation and infrastructure facilities are very poor. They are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes...76.12 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, a small scale industrial unit and availing general exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 and holding L-4 Central Excise Licence. On 30-3-1990, the officers of the Central Excise Preventive unit at Vapi visited the factory and conducted search operations and seized the documents, registers, papers and records on 30th and 31st May, 1990. The statutory records for the period ...
Tag this Judgment!