Mumbai Court November 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR742(Bom)
Mohta, J.1. Though the notices under sections 139(2) and 148 of the Income-tax Act and so also certain assessment orders passed by the income-tax authorities are challenged in this batch of petitions, the real controversy centres round a point whether the Market Committee as defined under section 2(j) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (APMC Act), is a local authority as contemplated under section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act (I.T. Act).2. Section 10 which falls in Chapter III of the Income-tax Act gives a long list of incomes not included in total income. One such category is to be found in section 10(20) which reads thus :'the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head 'Interest on securities', 'Income from house property', 'Capital gains' or 'Income from other sources' or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own ...
Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Vs. G.P. Hardas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR357
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Though the notices under sections 139(2) and 148 of the Income Tax Act and so also certain assessment orders passed by the Income Tax authorities are also challenged in this batch of petitions real controversy centres round a point whether the Market Committee as defined under section 2(j) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, (APMC Act), is a local authority as contemplated under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act (IT Act).2. Section 10 which falls in Chapter III of the IT Act gives a long list of incomes not included in total income. One such category is to be found in section 10(20) which reads thus :The income of local authority which is chargeable under the head 'interest on securities', 'income from house property' 'Capital gains' or 'income from other sources' or from trade business carried on by it, which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or services (not being water or electricity), within its own jurisdicti...
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: [1985]11ITD767(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri D. S. Meenakshisundaram, Judicial Member -Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., the assessee herein, has filed these four appeals against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 23-3-1982, for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. Since there are common contentions involved in these appeals, it will be convenient to dispose of the same by a common order. The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of paints. The assessee follows the calendar year as its previous year.2. The first objection, which is common to all the four years, is to the disallowance of the following amounts under the head Sales promotion expenses :Assessment yearAmount disallowed Rs.1975-7614,1871976-7733,7021977-7827,9541978-7950,820These amounts were disallowed by the departmental authorities for the reason that they represented entertainment expenditure incurred by the assessee in giving launches and dinners to its customers in five star hote...
Sardar Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC368(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference on a case stated by the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The question which has been referred to us for our determination is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of forfeiture passed by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose of determination of the question referred to us are as follows :The applicant-firm was a registered dealer under the said Act and dealt in soap at Dhulia. It was the sole selling agent in respect of soap for some manufacturers who gave it a trade discount and it was required to sell the soap supplied by these manufacturers at an agreed price. The manufacturers were themselves registered dealers under the said Act. Soap being one of the goods covered by Schedule C, the applicant did not have to...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Voyantzis Hotel Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC155(Bom)
Kania, J.1. There are two reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. As the same question has been referred in both the references and all the material facts are the same, except for the respective periods under assessment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The period under assessment in S.T.R. No. 28 of 1979 is the period from 1st July, 1965 to 30th June, 1966. The period under assessment in S.T.R. No. 29 of 1979 is 1st July, 1966 to 30th June, 1967. Incidentally, we may mentioned that S.T.R. No. 28 of 1970 arises from the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 675 of 1972 and S.T.R. No. 29 of 1979 arises from the decision of the Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 676 of 1972. We propose to refer to the said periods under assessment as 'the relevant periods'. The question submitted to us for determination in these two references is as follows :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in coming to ...
Shri Ambuja Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: 1988(19)LC471(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners manufacture phthalic anhydride (now called 'the finished product'). They manufacture it by using orthoxyelene (now called 'the raw material'). The raw material is manufactured in India only by the Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. (I.P.C.L.) and is supplied only to the petitioners, Shri Ambuja Petrochemicals Ltd., S.G. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. and Mysore Petrochemicals Ltd. The supply of the raw materials by IPCL is limited. Therefore, the petitioners had to import the raw material.2. There is an exemption notification dated 21st December, 1967 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, governing the levy of excise on the raw material. The relevant portions of the notification read thus:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts the excisable goods falling under Items 6 to 11A of the First Schedule to the Centr...
Mcdowell and Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: 1989(24)LC422(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The petitioners manufacture styrene from ethyl benzene. By reason of the notification dated 1st March, 1973 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, ethyl benzene is exempted from such excise duty thereon as is in excess of Rs. 472.50 per kilo litre. The notification states that this exemption is applicable if the Excise authorities are satisfied that the ethyl benzene is intended for the uses therein mentioned and, where such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production, the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules has been followed.2. Between January 1981 and September 1982 the petitioners imported 9 consignments of ethyl benzene. Before so doing the petitioners wrote to the Customs authorities at Bombay. They referred to the notification and sought confirmation that only Rs. 472.50 per kilo litre would be chargeable as additional duty on the ethyl benzene to be imported by them. On 22nd December, 1980 the Enquiry Officer in...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijaya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC180
Vaze, J.1. National Highway No. 6 which passes through the town of Jalgaon was the scene of an accident on 4-10-1981. On that day in the evening at 3.00 p.m. Ramdas started on his motor-bicycle No. MXO 2274 with his maternal uncle Baliram on the pillion as they wanted to proceed to Jalgaon Railway Station. Another relative, Ashok, also accompanied them on his own motor-cycle No. MWQ 2301 with Bhagwan as a double-rider and the four some were driving to the highway towards the station to give send off to Baliram who was proceeding to Bombay. After Ramdas crossed Paldhi Petrol Pump, a truck with a legend 'Doodh-Ganga' written on its buffer came from the opposite side and knocked down the motor-cycle No. MXO 2274. On account of the impact, the riders were killed Baliram on the spot and Ramdas three days after his admission in the hospital.2. On these facts Motor Accident Claim Application Nos. 22 of 1982 and 23 of 1982 were filed by the legal heirs of Ramdas and Baliram respectively. The T...
Ceat International Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD381(Mum.)
1. These two cross-appeals are by the assessee and the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 10-2-1982. The only issue for our consideration in these cross-appeals is, whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that 50 per cent of the export commission of Rs. 11,87,683 is taxable under Section 9(1)(vi) and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee claimed that commission in question is not taxable, while the revenue claimed that the entire commission is taxable.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 11,87,683 as export commission from Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. and claimed before the ITO that this is not taxable. The assessee had entered into an agreement with Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. on 9-9-1977. As per the agreement, the Indian company was to pay to the assessee Rs. 11,87,683 for the services rendered under the agreement vide clauses (a) The assessee would forego in favour of the Indian ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Saravagi Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR15; 1985MhLJ116; [1985]59STC259(Bom)
Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Respondents M/s. Saravagi Industries are manufacturers of laminated labels. For the manufacturer of laminated labels the assessee (respondents) had purchased iron and steel scrap sheets. Out of the sheets so purchased the assessee cut the required sizes for making laminated labels which were either round, square or oblong in shape. After the pieces were so cut, the remnants were sold as scrap. For the assessment period 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969 the Sales Tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to a set-off under rule 41-A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 to the extent proportionate to the scrap which was resold by the assessee. The sales Tax Officer worked out the quantity of resale as 11%. Hence he disallowed set-off under rule 41-A proportionately which worked out to a 'magnificent' sum of Rs. 165. The first appeal from this order of the Sales Tax Officer was rejected. In the second appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »