Mumbai Court October 1983 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. United Carbon (i) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD363(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the department. The ITO had passed an independent order levying interest under Section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order could not be considered as an order under Section 154 of the Act. He further gave a finding that since the order was passed after a lapse of 4 years, it was barred by limitation.2. Against this finding, the assessee is in appeal before us. Shri Sarkari, for the assessee, submitted that the ITO had not given any finding regarding the levy of interest in the assessment order. He submitted that such a finding was necessary before interest under Section 216 could be levied. He pointed out that even in the draft assessment order no reference was made to interest under Section 216.He further pointed out that the ITO had not taken any proceedings under Section 273 of the Act for levy of penalty. Relying on a decision of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alapat Bros. [...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spinning Weaving
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1983
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT566Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda against order No.V(22)18-73/79~R, dated "7.2.1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts of the case are that the Respondents manufacture man-made fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22(i) of the Central Excise Schedule.They claimed refund of Rs. 7201.93 on 23.9.1979 on the ground that this was paid as handloom cess in respect of bona fide trade samples of rayon/art silk fabrics and chindies from 28.10.1976 to 31.7.1978. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector as no date of payment by making a debit entry in Column 1 of the copy of PLA, submitted with the claim, was shown and nothing is stated about the day to day balance.However, even according to the work sheet, the dates of payment are from 6.7.78 to 3.12.78 and even if these are relied upon, the claim is time-barred under Rule 11, because it has been made on 23.6.79 ...
Tag this Judgment!Varma Family Trust Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD392(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a private discretionary trust created by trust deed dated 9-2-1976 for the benefit of seven beneficiaries. The trust had income from house property, interest and rent from furniture and fixtures. The ITO found that in the computation of property income, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs, 35,743 being legal expenses incurred in connection with the drawing up of a lease deed. It was claimed before the ITO that the expenses for legal fees and stamp charges adding up to Rs. 35,743 were paid for drawing up the lease deed in respect of property income and, hence, operated by way of overriding title to the rental income. Alternatively it was claimed that it represented collection charges for collecting the lease rent over a period of 9 years over which the lease was spread. A proportionate part of this amount obtained by dividing it by 9 years should be treated as collection charges. Thirdly, it was claimed that since the assessee Was assessed both on income from property a...
Tag this Judgment!Crescent Iron and Steel Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD98(Mum.)
1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding carry forward of loss. The assessee's claim is that the unabsorbed development rebate and the business loss of 1971-72 should be carried forward and set off against the profits of 1980-81.2. The assesseeis a limited company. It had adopted the financial year as the accounting year in the earlier years. The company was a subsidiary of National Electrical Industries Ltd. The parent company was amalgamated with another company. As a consequnce, the assessee-company had to change the accounting year. The change took place in the financial year 1978-79. Normally the assessee would have closed their accounts on 31-3-1979. However, on account of the change in the accounting year, the books were closed on 30-6-1979. As a result, there was no previous year for the assessment year 1979-80.After the assessment year 1978-79, the next assessment year was 1980-81. 1980-81 is the year under appeal before us.3. It is an admitted position that in...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Shipping Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD118(Mum.)
1. to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. The second ground raised in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 23,981, as made by the ITO, under Section 40A(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on the ground that in respect of the two employees of the assessee, the remuneration exceeded by the said amount the limit prescribed under the said provision.6. The two employees, referred to in this ground, are Capt. M.R.Dandekar and Capt. P.R. Sawant. They were captains of the ships owned by the assessee and their duty was on board the ships which sailed for abroad. The salary payable to these two employees came to Rs. 66,104 and Rs. 77,877, respectively. The ITO allowed salary to the extent of 60 per cent to each of the employees and disallowed the balance, which came to Rs. 23,981.7. The contention of the assessee was that salaries paid to these two employees were in respect of the period ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gonti Eliza David and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR333; [1986]59CompCas745(Bom)
Vaze J.1. Truck No. ATY 2996 belonging to Karnataka Rural Water Development CO. P. Ltd. ('the company ') of Bangalore was proceeding from Jalgaon towards Chalisgaon on April 3, 1979, along the State Highway, carrying some drilling equipment and accessories as well as the company's servants. One John Buryan David, who was employed by the company for its drilling operations, was one of the passengers of the truck which was being driven by Sadanand Karbali Kamble , another employee of the company. As a result of the accident, the truck turned turtle and John Buryan , who received the impact of heavy drilling equipment, died on the spot. The parents of the deceased, John Buryan, applied to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Jalgaon District at Jalgaon for compensation impleading the company and the National Insurance company limited of Hyderabad ('the insurer') with whom the truck was insured, as the opponents. The Tribunal awarded damages to the tune of Rs.27,500 in favour of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gonti Eliza David and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC240
Per Vaze, J.1. Truck No. ATY 2996 belonging to Karnataka Rural Water Development Company Private Limited ('Company') of Bangalore, was proceeding from Jalgaon towards Chalisgaon on 3rd April 1979 along the State Highway, carrying some drilling equipment and accessories as well as the company servants. One John Buryan David who was employed by the Company for its drilling operations was one of the passengers of the truck which was being driven by Sadanand Karbali Kamble, another employee of the Company. As a result of an accident, the truck turned futile and John Buryan who received the impact of heavy drilling equipment died on the spot. The parents of the deceased John Buryan applied to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Jalgaon District at Jalgaon for compensation impleading the Company and the National Insurance Company Ltd. of Hyderabad, ('insurer') with whom the truck was insured, as the opponents. The Tribunal awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 27,500/- in favour of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Paaran Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD462(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri S. N. Rotho, Accountant Member - This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 30-11-1982 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1979-80, the previous year of which ended on 30-6-1978.2. The assessee is a limited company deriving income from business, amongst others, as commission agents for the pharmaceutical products of Alembic Chemical Co. Ltd., for the Alcoholic Products of Niraya (P.) Ltd. and for the fertilisers of Paushak Ltd.3. The first ground in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the medical expenses reimbursed by the assessee-company were not in the nature of perquisites for the purpose of disallowance under section 40A (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and that for disallowing the perquisites paid to an employee-director, the provisions of section 40(c) of the Act and not those of section 40A (5) would apply. Smt V. Gopalakrishnan, the learned representative for the d...
Tag this Judgment!Shalini Trust Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: (1984)7ITD274(Mum.)
1. An original assessment was made in the case of this assessee-trust by the WTO applying the provisions of Section 21(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The Commissioner looking into the file of the assessee found that while applying the above provisions, the WTO allowed a deduction under Section 5(1A) of the Act in respect of the net wealth covered by the shares held by the assessee-trust. According to the Commissioner, this deduction was not to be granted, the order of the WTO was, thus, erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Giving an opportunity to the assessee in this regard the Commissioner, therefore, set aside the order of the WTO and directed him to make a fresh assessment in the light of the observations made by him, i.e., in effect not giving a deduction under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(1A) in the case of the assessee-trust. The appeal is directed against this order of the Commissioner.2. The learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Ace Camera Equipment Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Bom)2; [1984]150ITR231(Bom); [1985]23TAXMAN457(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This review application has been placed for admission. It deserves to be rejected on a two-fold basis. In the first place, it is beyond time by five days, although the principle signed by the Advocate for the Central Government states that it is within time. No explanation is furnished for the delay nor is consideration of delay sought. On this ground itself the review application deserves to be rejected in limine.2. What is more fatal, however, is that we find that the review application is totally misconceived. It is not open, in our opinion, to the party aggrieved by a judgment to attempt to have a rehearing of the matter in the guise of a review petition merely because some further arguments have been discovered or views of some authors elicited which may seem to support the position taken by the party, which position was negatived by the court. If it be conceded that a review application would be maintainable merely because some further argument has been though of, whi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »