Mumbai Court December 1985 Judgments
Piramal Exports Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)(9)LC499Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Fourteen Revision Applications filed before the Government of India against the Order bearing Nos. S/49-374 to 387/79 DBK dt. 25.2.1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as appeals.2. As all these appeals involve common questions of law and facts they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be stated as under: The appellants, M/s Piramal Exports Ltd., are the exporters of printed sarees of polyester which they purchased from M/s Morarjee Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. They purchased 100% polyester sarees between September, 1978 to 31st March, 1979 from the Mills. According to the appellants the Mills paid excise duty for the fibre and they did not claim any rebate in respect of the fibre after the sarees are manufactured therefrom. It was the contention of the appellants that at the time of export they ha...
Tag this Judgment!Tractor Engineers Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)19ITD369(Mum.)
2. The assessee is a company carrying on business of manufacturing trailer tract parts of the tractors. The assessee paid Rs. 1,20,761 to Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which was holding company in relation to the assessee-company. On 12-2-1971 the board of directors of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. passed a resolution in which it was observed that the said company had substantial interest in the assessee-company. It was resolved that the three directors of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., viz., Mr. H.Holck-Larsen, Mr. N.M. Desai and Mr. Gunnar Hansen would serve as members of the committee as directors of the assessee-company and that the remuneration payable to them (exclusive of sitting fees as members of the committee) would be held by them in trust for the company (L & T) and shall be made over by them to the said company. Those three directors acted as trustees of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., and received Rs. 1,20,761 as commission from the assessee-company in the capacity of such trustees. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Eighth Income-tax Officer Vs. M.V. Gokarnam
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)16ITD506(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1977-78 for which the relevant accounting year ended on 31-3-1977. The assessee was an engineer and in the relevant accounting year he derived income by way of salary from 'Trition Valves Ltd.' of which he was managing director. In that year he received Rs. 43,000 from the said company for supplying project report for manufacture of a mechanical item with rubberised base having application in automobile industry. That report was prepared by him in the year 1971 when he was serving with some other company and had been submitted by him to financial institutions, who did not initially consider the project financially viable. However, in 1975 the financial institutions considered the said project to be financially viable, with the result that Trition Valves Ltd., of which the assessee was managing director, adopted the said project report and paid Rs. 43,000 as price for the same to the assessee. The said company treated the ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal M. Bohra Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)LC247Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Babulal M.Bohra has filed an application dated 15-1-1982 to the Government of- India against the Board's Order No. 720-A of 81 dated 22-12-81. The application is purported to have been filed under old Section 131 of the Customs Act. It has accordingly been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act and is to be treated as an appeal to the Tribunal.2. The appellant Shri Bohra has sought the setting aside of the Board's order No. 720-A dated 22-12-81. Under the aforesaid order dated 22-12-81, the Board vacated its earlier order-in-appeal No. 264A dated 7-4-81 under which the penalty on the appellant was reduced from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 1000/-.3. Advocate, Shri Gehani has argued that the facts of the present appeal before the. Tribunal are rather unusual. Referring to the facts of the case, Shri Gehani stated that the Addl. Collector levied a penalty of Rs. 12,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act as he was found to be the real custod...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Ralhan Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)18ITD50(Mum.)
1. These are two miscellaneous applications directed against the order of the Tribunal in WT Appeal No. 449 (Bom.) of 1984 dated 21-1-1985.The first miscellaneous application is filed by the advocate for the assessee and the other by the chartered accountant. Both these applications refer to certain mistakes which have crept into the order of the Tribunal and have sought for rectification of the same. As far as the first miscellaneous application is concerned, it refers to certain mistakes which have affected the assessee adversely. The miscellaneous application by the chartered accountant in addition to the above has also sought correction of mistakes which have affected him as a professional.2. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22-11-1982 for the assessment year 1969-70. The appellate order was served on the assessee on 12-12-1982, but the appeal before the Tribunal entered as WT Appeal No. 449 (Bom.) of 1984 was filed only on 29-2-19...
Tag this Judgment!Forwarding P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Trustees, Port of Vizagapatnam, and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas513(Bom)
1. These two company applications, one being Company Application No. 237 of 1985, and the other being Company Application No. 282 of 1985, are taken out in Company Petition No. 112 of 1983. I shall first deal with the subject-matter of Company Application No. 282 of 1985, and then with Company Application No. 237 of 1985.2. The facts that give rise to Company Application No. 282 of 1985, are that the New India Fisheries Ltd., a company now in liquidation, was seized and possessed of several properties including five fishing trawlers. These five fishing trawlers were seized by the Vizagapatnam Port Authorities on July 3, 1982, for non-payment of their bills. The Port Authorities then put up these trawlers for auction on two occasions, but the auction did not materialise. On March 15, 1984, a winding-up order was passed in respect of this company. Thereafter, the official liquidator called a meeting on April 3, 1984, when, amongst others, only one director was present so also a represent...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Dattatraya Gune and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR30
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Heard Shri R.D. Ovalekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri A.R. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel for the department and Shri R.S. More, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State, in all the petitions.2. Perused the relevant papers.3. Apparently there is absolutely no reason as to why the concession of liberty in anticipation of the arrest should not be granted to all the petitioners in these petitions. The petitioners are concerned with the Kirloskar Group of Industries who have a net work at different places in the country. As per the allegations on the apprehension of breach of the provisions under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, certain premises of the said concern at Pune were inspected on or about 9th of December, 1985 and a corresponding inspection took place at different places connected with the said industries. The Officers, the Directors, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman all have been subjected to interrogation for quite a number of times in ...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Dastur and Co. Vs. Eleventh Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: (1986)16ITD499(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, who is aggrieved by the cancellation of the registration granted to the firm on the ground that one of the partners was paid a guaranteed fixed amount instead of a share in the profits of the fir-m and that since that partner was not entitled to any goodwill or the assets on the dissolution of the firm and also that he was not entitled to operate the bank account and also inspect the books of account. On behalf of the assessee Mr. S.E.Dastur, the learned counsel for the assessee, filed a paper book running to 43 pages and also the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Raghunandan Nanu Kothari v. Hormusjee 20 Bom. LR 207. Referring to the paper book filed, Mr. Dastur submitted that in the partnership deed which is filed at page 19 onwards that Shri Pardawala who was admitted as a partner on 1-1-1976 was to contribute capital of Rs. 7,500 and it is a fact that such capital has been contributed by him.It is a case of a professional firm of ch...
Tag this Judgment!Piramal Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1985
Reported in: (1986)19ITD219(Mum.)
1. Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bombay, both the assessee-company and the revenue have come up in appeal before us. Both the appeals are, therefore, disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is a private limited company and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The ITO applied the provisions of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and out of the claim of deduction of interest to various persons (other than banks) disallowed 15 per cent. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee-company claimed, firstly, that it was an 'investment company' with in the meaning assigned to it under Sub-clause (if) of Clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 40A(8) and, consequently, Section 40A(8) will not be applicable in the assessee's case. Alternatively, it was claimed that the accounts of the two directors, Mrs. Vijaya M. Piramal and Miss Archana M. Piramal, were current accounts and the interest paid on these current accounts of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirana Grains and Edible Oils, Wholesale and Retail Merchants Associat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR499
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chandrapur, constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (The Act) for the first time in the year 1981, started levying market fees on the goods imported within the area of the Market Committee on the importer at the point of their entry in the Market Committee. A registered association of the wholesale ad retail merchants carrying on business of grains and edible oil within the area of the Market Committee has by this petition challenged the validity of levy in its manner in respect of produce brought in the market area for sale. The only point that is pressed before us is whether such levy has any sanction in the provisions of the Act. Our answer is 'No' for the following reasons.2. Section 31 of the Act which gives the power to the Marketing Committee to levy fees reads as under :'It shall be competent to a Market Committee to levy and collect fees in the prescribed manner at such rates...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »