Mumbai Court October 1985 Judgments
J.B.A. Printing Inks Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC364Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order n appeal bearing No. S/49-568/82-M dated 31.12.1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants' claim for refund of duty on shortages was rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Customs as barred under Section 27(1). On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order and rejected the appeal.3. During the hearing of the appeal Shri H.D. Mukaddam, Materials Manager urged that the duty was paid on 12.6.81. The application for refund was made on 12.12.81. The date of payment of duty shall have to be excluded and if so excluded, the application for refund was within time.4. Shri G.D. Pal, the learned Departmental Representative, however, contended that the application for refund shall have to be made within six months from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, the date of payment of duty cannot be excluded. If the date of payment of duty cannot be excluded, then the application for refund is clearl...
Tag this Judgment!Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Bom)1; [1986]162ITR753(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN65(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, two questions are put to us in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 19 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. They read as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the excess in the profit and loss account of Rs. 25,81,671 was includible in the capital base under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, for granting the standard deduction ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision for taxation of Rs. 52,68,486 or any part thereof was includible in the capital computation base under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, for granting standard deduction The assessment year involved is 1963-64 for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1962.2. The Super Profits Tax Officer computed the capital base of the assessee for the purposes of computing the tax payable by the assessee under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the said...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Mulchand Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner or Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)195; [1986]162ITR764(Bom)
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. This reference raises an interesting question as to what constitutes 'manufacture or processing' within the meaning of the said expression in clause(c) of sub-section(6) of section 2 of the Finance No. 2 (Act) of 1971. The reference is made on a case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question posed to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the activities of the assessee in sorting our, washing, drying and blending the wool can be said to be manufacturing or processing of goods so as to fall within the scope of section 2(6)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the export of goods to foreign countries. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1971-72. During the relevant previous year, the assessee purchased raw wool in heaps from shepherds and petty traders at upcountry centers. What the assessee purchased was mixed clipp...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC238; 1989(20)LC468(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT24(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a composite textile mill in Greater Bombay. The petitioners manufacture, inter alia, cotton yarn as well as cotton fabrics out of cotton yarn manufactured by them. Under the provisions of the Central excises and Salt Act the petitioners are liable to pay excise duty on cotton yarn manufactured by them as well as on cotton fabrics manufactured by them out of the said cotton yarn.2. At the material time Central Excise Rules of 1944 contained a special procedure for payment of excise duty, inter alia, on cotton yarn and cotton fabrics in the case of a manufacturer who manufactures cotton yarn and uses it in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. The relevant rules in this connection were rule 96V and rule 96W (Since repealed in June 1977). Under rule 96V 'where a manufacturer who manufactures cotton yarn....... and....... uses the whole or part of the yarn manufactured by him in the manufacture of cotton fabric in his own factory, makes in the proper form an application...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Bom)228; [1987]163ITR560(Bom)
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. These six references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arise on a common statement of the case. The questions referred to in the said references are substantially similar. In these circumstances, we propose to dispose of these references by this common judgment.2. Kirloskar Brothers Limited, which is regarded as the parent company of the assessee-company, carried on business, inter alia, of manufacturing air-compressors since its incorporation in 1928. In 1958, Kirloskar Brothers Limited considered it desirable to carry on the said business by floating a new company, namely, the assessee-company. The assessee-company was, therefore, formed in 1958 with the main object of manufacturing industrial engineering products. It started with the production of air-compressors, including industrial air-compressors. It entered into several collaboration agreements for manufacturing the full range of air-compressors, pneumatic tools and rock drills. Two of these ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ruston and Hornsby India (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Bom)50; [1986]160ITR712(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN194(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. These are references at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The common questions posed therein read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deferred taxation reserve of Rs. 75,000 as on January 1, 1965, January 1, 1966, and January 1, 1967, constituted 'reserves' as contemplated under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the doubtful debts reserve of Rs. 45,000 as on January 1, 1965, January 1, 1966, and January 1, 1967, Rs. 70,000 as on January 1, 1968, and Rs. 4,007 as on January 1, 1969, constituted 'reserves' as contemplated under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. Under section 4 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, surtax was charged on every company for every assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR81; (1986)51CTR(Bom)183; [1986]159ITR28(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN106(Bom)
Kania, Actg.C.J.1. These are six references arising on a statement of the case submitted under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. References Nos. 287 and 287A of 1975 relate to Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd., References Nos. 287B and 287C of 1975 relate to the Tata Power Co. Ltd. and References Nos. 287D and 287E of 1975 relate to Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd. As the references arise on a common statement of the case and the question referred to us for our determination is the same, we propose to dispose of these references by this common judgment.2. The three assessees are companies doing the business of generation and supply of electric power to consumers. They belong to the Tata group of companies. The assessee companies undertook the erection of a thermal power-station at Trombay and the erection of that power station was completed during the previous years relev...
Tag this Judgment!ishardas and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom348; 1986MhLJ30
Vaze, J. 1. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act') is a consolidating and amending Act relating to motor vehicles. Under Clause 18 of Section 2 of the Act, 'motor vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. Clause (33) of Section 2 defines 'transport vehicle' to mean a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle, and Section 22 makes it obligatory upon the owner to obtain a certificate of registration before causing or permitting the vehicle to be driven in any public place. In addition to the requirement of a certificate of registration, Section 38 further prescribes that a transport vehicle should, in addition, carry a certificate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Maya B. Ramchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Bom)66; [1986]162ITR460(Bom); [1986]25TAXMAN232(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The common question raised by these references reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that sums of Rs. 5,90,050 and Rs, 8,70,891 are not liable to be treated as dividends under section 2(6A)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 is in law justified ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the allusion in the question should be to section 2(6A)(e), of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. We shall so read the question.3. By reason of section 2(6A)(e), 'dividend' includes :'any payment by a company, not being a company, in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of section 23A of any Sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company of otherwise) by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by any such company of behalf, or for the individual benefit, of a shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulate...
Tag this Judgment!Khushal S/O Arjun Choure Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR530; 1986MhLJ183
S.W. Puranik, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 the petitioner challenges the order of externment passed under section 57 of Bombay Police Act against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondia, on 16/7/1985.2. Under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, a person can be externed from a specified area if such person has been convicted for an offence under Chapter XII, XVI, XVII of the Indian Penal Code or of any offence under sections 65, 66A and 68 of the Bombay Prohibition Act or of an offence under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 or 9 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, or of an offence under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, or of an offence under section 4, or for accepting bet in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, or in any race course under Clause (a) of section 12 or under section 12-A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, or if a person has been convicted t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »