Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2007
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) XI at Mumbai dated 24-6-2003. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The first ground raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as follows: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) XI erred in confirming that the Appellant was not entitled to depreciation of Rs. 14,03,100 in respect of premium paid for acquiring office premises amounting to Rs. 1,40,31,000.3. The assessee had acquired office premises during the previous year under appeal, at Barodawala Mansion, Worli. The premises were acquired as tenants. As part of the deal, the assessee had paid the amount of Rs. 1,40,31,000 for acquiring the premises on perpetual lease. The amount was paid by the assessee to the outgoing tenants for vacating the premises earlier held by them. The owners of the property are not liable to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-19-2007
Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-18-2007
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR195; 2007(5)BomCR694; (2007)109BOMLR1701; 2008(1)MhLj205
M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. Letters patent appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.3. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 13-03-2007 in Writ Petition No. 755/2007, whereby the learned Single Judge of this High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition by confirming the Judgment of learned Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 350/1994 as well as the Judgment of the Cooperative Court, Jalgaon in Dispute No. 134/1989 directing present appellants to surrender peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent No. 1 and payment of past mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 18,000/-.4. The subject matter in dispute is plot No. 8-B (bungalow No. 48), situated in respondent No. 2 Society at Nandurbar. Present respondent No. 1 is the Chairman of respondent No. 2 Societ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-2007
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR532; 2007(6)BomCR700; (2007)109BOMLR2072; 2008BusLR161(Bom); LC2007(3)299; 2008(36)PTC53(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Defendant No. 2 is one Ms.Karuna Raju Samtani and Defendant No. 3 is Star (India) Limited.2. The suit is filed for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in the literary work and cinematograph film embodying the television game show 'Titan Antakshari' being broadcast on its television channel 'Zee' since September, 1993 inter- alia by Defendant No. 3 broadcasting the television game show 'Antakshari - The Great Challenge'. The Plaintiff has also sought an order restraining the Defendants from making and broadcasting the television game show 'Antakshari - The Great Challenge' and/or using the content and/or presentation and/or the word 'Antakshari' in relation to any television game show so as to pass off such show as being a television game show associated with and/or authorized by and/or having any connection with the Plaintiff's game show 'Titan Antakshari'. Finally the Plaintiff has sought damages and an order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-28-2007
Reported in : (2008)115TTJ(Mum.)779
1. These are the cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee which have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake convenience. First we take up the appeal of the assessee. We take up the assessee's first ground whether the lower authorities were justified in assessing the sum of Rs. 2,25,37,301/- under Section 41(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which represented the insurance claim received by the assessee.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee started a windmill project in the assessment year 1996-97 by installing windmills for the purpose of generating electricity. The total cost of such windmills amounted to Rs. 2.8 crore. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on this asset for the assessment year 1996-97 itself. Thus, the written down value (WDV) of the plant was reduced to nil. However, the said windmills were destroyed in the cyclone in assessment year 1999-2000 against which the assessee received a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-08-2007
Reported in : I(2008)DMC629
A.A. Sayed, J.1. The above Appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 28th June, 2002 of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No. 111 of 1998 sentencing the Appellant, who was the accused in the Trial Court, to life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/, and in default to suffer R.I. for two months. The Appellant was also tried for offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of which the Appellant was discharged, as no evidence was found on those counts by the Trial Court.2. The prosecution's case in a nutshell is thus The victim Heena @ Kavita Deepak Talreja (hereinafter called 'the deceased') and the Appellant were husband and wife and were married some time in the year 1994 and were residing at 706, 7th Floor, Dream Land Apartment, Gol Maidan, Ulhasnagar. It was a love affair which culmin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-06-2007
Reported in : 2007(2)BomCR574; (2007)208CTR(Bom)257; [2007]290ITR377(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Writ Petition taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 26th October, 2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and also the order dated 28th July, 2006 passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner for reopening of the assessment for AY 1999-2000.3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of three wheelers and components thereof. On 30th March, 1998, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Greaves Limited for purchase of Baramati Unit on 'as is where is basis' as a going concern free from all encumbrances with effect from and including the Transfer Date (31st March, 1998) for a total consideration of Rs. 23,70,00,000/-plus goodwill amounting to Rs. 4,30,00,000/-.4. For the year ended 31st March, 1999 relevant to AY 1999-2000, the assessee filed its r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-26-2007
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ371Bom
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43/2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Sections 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970] (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(1)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-27-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)BomCR899; [2008(116)FLR457]; 2007(6)MhLj185
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Section 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(l)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-12-2007
Reported in : AIR2008Bom88
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs application for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The questions that arise in this case fall into two categories. The first is whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be granted after the plaint is not only presented under Rule 1 of Order IV but is also admitted and entered in the register under Rule 2 of that Order of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second is whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave under Clause 12 even assuming the first question is answered in the affirmative. I have answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative.FACTS3(A) It is admitted that the plaint was presented on 29-9-2004 that it was admitted on 10-12-2004 without leave having been sought or obtained.(B)(i) The defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005 raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and for a declaration that this C...
Tag this Judgment!