Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Sorted by: old Court: mumbai goa Year: 2012 Page 2 of about 14 results (0.087 seconds)

Oct 15 2012 (HC)

Dinesh Narayan Shet S/O Narayan Shet Vs. Ms. Geeta Gurudas Chari

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Oct-15-2012

..... . learned counsel further submitted that even the amount which the complainant has claimed to have advanced to the accused is not shown in the income tax returns. this clearly shows that accused has not borrowed the amount from the complainant. according to the accused, she has discharged the burden ..... in criminal case no. 62/oa/nia/2009/b, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ('the act' for short). 3. the appellant is the complainant in the above case. it is the case of the complainant that the accused ..... therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the accused convicted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the act. 10. per contra, mr. rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record that the ..... evidence in defence. 6. learned magistrate by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the act. 7. learned magistrate acquitted the accused primarily on the following grounds:- (i) the complainant had failed to prove that the accused issued post ..... however, no reply was sent by the accused. since the accused failed to make payment, the complaint was filed under section 138 of the act. 4. on recording verification, process was issued against the accused. the substance of accusation was explained to the accused for which accused pleaded not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2012 (HC)

Pundalik Tukaram Chowgule Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Pe ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Nov-05-2012

..... he thereby attested the fixed deposit receipts held by him. 37. mr. padiyar also relied upon the profit and loss account and the returns filed under section 139 of the income tax act, 1960. he submitted that the audited balance sheet itself satisfies the requirement of an attestation. however, in view of what we have already held, it is not necessary to ..... cash in the form of bank balance, fixed deposits, shares of listed companies etc.12 fixed and movable assets includes own land, buildings, shops, house, vehicles, etc.4 income includes agricultural income, business income, interest, rent, royalty, etc. duly supported by documentary evidence.4 finance ? will be proportionately distributed in the ratio of maximum marks of 12, 4, 4, 5 ..... to ??capability to arrange the finance ? was divided into four sub-criteria namely ??liquid cash in the form of bank fixed deposits etc. ? , ??fixed and movable assets ? , ??income ? and ??letter ensuring loan/credit worthiness ? . the dispute in this petition pertains to the marks allocated for the criteria ??liquid cash in the form of bank fixed deposits etc. ? ..... loans, uti, nsc, bonds, shares of public limited companies etc., details of other assets like immovable property (land, building etc.). movable properties like vehicle etc., any other sources of income like from interest, rent, business etc. (please attach proof in all cases). the details under ??finance ? may be provided in the following format: (attach separate sheet as required) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2012 (HC)

Mahesh Kamat Vs. S. Vallabhdas Vishundas

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Dec-07-2012

..... ; (1977)79 bomlr 104. (viii) l. c. randhir vs. girdharilal and anr.; 1978 crilj 879. (ix) j. rajmohan pillai vs. state of maharashtra and y. s. vaze, dy. commissioner of income tax; 2004(2)mhlj 323. (x) valmikifaleiro vs. mrs. lauriana fernandes and ors. etc.; 2005 cri lj 2498. (xi) rajkumarbhimrao gawali vs. union of india, new delhi; manu/mh/1535/1999 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2012 (HC)

M/S. Enpee Earthmovers and Others Vs. M/S.Resources International and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Decided on : Dec-14-2012

..... the debts receivable by the firm. he showed from the crossexamination of pw,1 that interest was not accounted for in the books of accounts and income tax returns of the complainant. relying upon ??lakshmikant naik karmali v/s santosh naik ? [2006(2) bcr (cri) 830], the learned counsel ..... ascertained existing debt.therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused has committed offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act. 39. the complainant tried its luck by filing one case in panaji court and other four separate cases in ponda court, though in ..... the debt or liability was not ascertained. the accused, therefore, has raised probable defence sufficient to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the act. the onus of proving the legally enforceable debt or liability had shifted to the complainant. the standard of proof for the complainant is not ..... proved by the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. this is one more circumstance helping the accused to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the act. 32. there is contradictory version stated in the complaint filed in panaji court as compared to that stated in the complaints filed in ponda ..... both found that the complaints were not maintainable and that complainant could not establish beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of section 138 of the n.i. act, as against the accused. all the complaints, therefore, came to be dismissed. 10. mr. sudesh usgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //