Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 11 of about 154 results (0.020 seconds)

Jun 03 2005 (TRI)

J.M. Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-03-2005

..... cbe&c circular no. 37/96-cus dated 30/07/96. the contention of the appellants in the appeal before the tribunal that all the bunkers were consumed is therefore patently incorrect, in view of the clear finding of the adjudicating authority. since the authorities below have correctly assessed bunkers on merit in the light of the circular referred above, there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-26-2005

Reported in : (2006)(193)ELT243Tri(Mum.)bai

..... submission, we cannot accept the proposition that the intermediate strepto penicillin is not being used for two different products viz. branded fortified penicillin and benzyl penicillin which are classified as patent and proprietary medicaments and non-branded generic fortified penicillin & benzyl penicillin exported classified differently. therefore, the grounds taken on an assumption of removal of labels/or denial of 8% route .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (TRI)

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

..... to identify the manufacturer and not the product and is therefore in the nature of a house mark and that will not render the ayurvedic medicine in question as a patent or proprietary medicament.2. we have heard the learned sdr and perused the records; none appeals for the respondents in spite of notice.3. the adjudicating authority has examined the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2005 (TRI)

Asia Pacific Fund Inc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-13-2005

Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)548

..... and justified the action of the ao on the ground that only mistakes which can be rectified under section 154 are the mistakes apparent from record (which) are obvious or patent mistakes, and would not include 'a mistake which can be established following a process of reasoning'. it was noted that the mistake as pointed out, even if a mistake, could .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2005 (TRI)

The D.C.i.T. (Osd), Range 7(2) Vs. Saraf Chemicals Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-2005

Reported in : (2006)102ITD356(Mum.)

..... supreme court decision in the case of ciba (india) ltd. 69 itr 692. it was held in this case that any expenditure incurred for obtaining the right to use the patents and trademarks for a limited period is to be considered as an expenditure of revenue nature. the ld.cit(a) has then referred to the supreme court decision in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2005 (TRI)

Dy. Cit Vs. Ramnord Research Labs. (P.) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-09-2005

..... sub-clause of section 32 provides that expenditure incurred on the premises taken on leave and licence basis is to be treated as capital expenditure. this formation of belief is patently incorrect in law. explanation 1 of section 32(1) on the other hand provides that where a premises has been taken on leave and license basis then for the purpose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 2005 (TRI)

Sonata Information Technology Vs. Dy Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-11-2005

Reported in : (2006)7SOT465(Mum.)

..... of ssl was much more expenditure oriented than business activity of assessee. hence, in his opinion, the expenditure on support services to the assessee in the ratio of turnover was patently wrong. after going through the agreement, it was also held that ssl was required to advise the assessee in the matters of finance, accounts, taxation, legal, administration, hrd etc., and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2005 (HC)

Charan Parashramji Meshram, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Vs. Sta ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-03-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR742

..... on the nature of duties of the post and availability of candidates possessing better qualifications. courts would not normally interfere in such an exercise unless it is shown to be patently arbitrary and/or malafide. in the instant case the affidavit of the government filed before mat and even today, it is clear that a decision to amend the rules was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2005 (HC)

Sunda Associates Vs. Ajit Kisanlal Agarwal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR69; 2005(5)BomCR428; 2005(3)MhLj362

..... for only a limited purpose as indicated therein. consequently, under the very scheme of provisions enacted in chapter viii of the act and the avowed legislative purpose obviously made known patently by those very provisions, the competent authority can by no means be said to be 'court' for any and every purpose and that too for availing of or exercising powers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2005 (HC)

Laxman Vithoba Bhorsat and ors. Vs. Rajaram Vithoba Bhorsat and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-20-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR418; 2005(3)MhLj969

d.k. deshmukh, j.1. by this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment in the written statement. suit admittedly is a suit for partition. amendment is sought by the defendant in the written statement. amendment in the written statement, which results in including other properties than the one in relation to which partition is sought by the plaintiff does not really amount to counter-claim. therefore, the trial court and the defendant have committed an error in terming it as a counter-claim. it really is an application for amendment in the written statement, so that other properties which according to the defendant are also joint family properties can be subjected to partition. in a suit filed for a decree for partition the defendant who has share in the joint properties is also in the position of the plaintiff, therefore a defendant can claim in his written statement that apart from the properties which are mentioned in the plaint there are other properties which are joint and deserve to be partitioned. 2. i do not find any patent illegality in the order. petition is rejected.

Tag this Judgment!

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