Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD148(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the revenue, pertaining to the assessment year 1972-73, has the following factual background.2. Ruston & Hornsby Ltd., an English company, is the assessee. Ruston & Hornsby (India) Ltd. is an Indian company. There were business connections between these two companies since several years. Under an agreement entered into on 1-3-1951, read with several supplemental indentures, the English company had permitted the Indian company to manufacture YDA diesel engines. The English company was holding a patent for the manufacture and sale of air-cooled engines identified as YWA engines. By an agreement dated 28-7-1967 the English company agreed to grant a licence to the Indian company to manufacture in India YWA engines under certain conditions. The agreement, mentioned above had been reached by the parties after the approval of the Government of India. At this stage, it is enough to mention that a sum of Rs. 2,62,500 was payable to the English company as consideration...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD44(Mum.)
1. The appeals are by the department. The cross-objections are by the assessee. The basis of all these appeals is the levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act 1957 ('the Act'), by the WTO for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72. Different amounts of penalties have been levied by the WTO. In the departmental appeals several grounds are raised. One of the grounds is that the appeals against the levy of penalties having been filed before the AAC but subsequently transferred to and taken up for consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is ab initio void.Objection is also raised to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s issuing a show-cause notice of hearing to the ITO even before receiving a report from him on the point of limitation. A consequential ground is that the ITO was not given an opportunity of hearing. Apparently, the reference to the ITO in these grounds is a mistake for the WTO since the appeals before us are under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)87BOMLR218; [1985(50)FLR401]; (1985)IILLJ524Bom
1. The petitioners seek to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court on 18th November, 1983 granting permission to close down Mukesh Textile Mills.2. The facts and points for determination in both the Writ Petitions are common except that in Writ Petition No. 244 of 1984 an additional ground of challenge is levelled. A consolidated judgment.Hereunder the facts :-(A) Since 1975, Transport Corporation of India (T.C.I.) a public limited company owns and manages Mukesh Textiles Mills (referred to hereafter as 'the Mills'). T.C.I. also owns and manages three other units with which these petitions are not concerned. (B) Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh (the 1st petitioner in Writ Petition No. 179 of 1984) is registered Trade Union. It claims to have amongst its members the majority of the workers of the Mill. This is admitted by T.C.I. Maharashtra Girini Kamgar Union (the 1st petitioner in Writ Petition No. 244 of 1984) claims that the majority of the Mill's workers are it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)12ITD12(Mum.)
1. The assessee is an individual having share income from the firm of Textile Distributors & Agents, dividend income, income by way of interest and director's fees. During the year of account, the assessee claimed a deduction of legal expenses totaling up to Rs. 5,219 incurred in connection with gift-tax and wealth-tax proceedings. The break up of the above amount was given as :(a) Wealth-tax for 1976-77 200(b) Gift-tax for 1976-77 100(c) Amount paid to J.B. Dadachandji for appeal work for1971-72 1,219(d) Amount paid to Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. forgift-tax work of 1975-76 3,700Total 5,219 The sum of Rs. 1,219 was paid in connection with an appeal to the Supreme Court, whereas the sum of Rs. 3,700 was paid in connection with a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that none of these expenses are relatable to the earning of the assessee's income from dividend.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom354; 1985(2)BomCR185; (1985)87BOMLR405; 1985MhLJ875
ORDER1. This is an Election Petition by an unsuccessful candidate u/s. 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act), challenging the election of respondent No.2 to the membership of Maharashtra Legislative Council from Teachers Constituency (Amravati Division). This election which was for only one candidate took place on 15th of July, 1984 on the basis of preferential voting system as provided in Part VII of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (Rules) framed u/s. 169 of the R.P.Act.2. There were in all 12 candidates in the field. Purushottam Somwanshi (respondent No.2) - a returned candidate - secured after recount 3902 first preferential votes and the petitioner Dattatraya Lanke 3974. The number of the valid votes was 9455. Only one seat was to be filled in and hence counting had to be as per R.75. Quota sufficient to return the candidates was determined at 4728 as per R.75(1). As none reached quota in first count, further counting took place as per R.75(3). Candidate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(1)BomCR563
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Suren (India) Traders. The petitioner is occupying half portion of Room No. 413 on the 4th floor of Union Bank Building, situate at 66/80 Apollo Street, Fort, Bombay under an agreement of leave and licence between the petitioner and one H.D. Commercial Corporation. The first respondent, Union Bank of India is the owner of the said building. Room No. 413 in the said building was originally given on lease to M/s. H.D. Commercial Corporation at a monthly rent of Rs. 215.36 paise. The tenancy of the said Corporation was terminated by the Union Bank of India by their Advocate's letter dated 6th February, 1965. Thereafter another notice was issued to the said Corporation dated 18th August, 1966 terminating the tenancy and calling upon the said Corporation to pay the rent of the said premises from 1-4-1965 to 31-7-1966. Thereafter, the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(2)BomCR671; 1985MhLJ569
V.A. Mohta, J.1. On 3rd June, 1977 the State Government passed a resolution by which the old Rule 61 of the Secondary Schools Code, relating to appointment of the head of a school was substituted by a new rule. Previously the merit cum seniority was the principle but by amendment seniority has become a predominant factor-deviation from rule of seniority is possible but only as specified in the rule. In the relevant Rule 61(2)(a) is carved out an exception with which we are concerned in the present matter. It reads :'In the case of Girls school, that is a school run exclusively for girls, the senior most teacher fulfilling the conditions laid down in Rule 61(1)(a) above and having satisfactory record of service shall be appointed as Head Mistress of that school irrespective of her seniority vis-a-vis the male teachers.'Obliged by this rule the Governing Council of the New High School, Amraoti, a Society duly registered under the Indian Societies Registration Act, 1960, (respondent No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)(21)ELT483Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a transferred appeal under Section 82-K of the Gold (Control) Act and is directed against Order No. VIII (Cus.) 110-1/77 Adj 834, dated 21-4-79 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs Pune. By that order the Collector had ordered confiscation of six bars of primary gold weighing 1870 gms and 96 gold coins weighing 768 gms. under Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, The confiscated goods had been allowed to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 31,000-and subject to further conditions regarding conversion after redemption. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- had also been imposed on the Appellant under Section 74 of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that Income-tax authorities searched the premises of the Appellant at Shahapur. Among other things, they found 6 gold chips and 96 gold coins referred to above. All the items except 6 gold coins were found concealed in a wall inside the Ganesh cupboard and 6 gold coins were found in the cupboard itself. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(19)LC200(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT517(Bom)
Sawant, J.1. The controversy in the present case falls within a narrow compass viz. whether the respondent-Exporters (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) are entitled to import non-debit open general licence items and if so, whether the said items should be as per the policy of 1982-83 to which the imprest licence related to as per the current policy.2. The petitioners are registered exporters and at the relevant time held an export house certificate. On the basis of the Import-Export policy of 1982-83, they applied for an imprest licence and it was issued to them for the C.I.F. value of Rs. 28,17,321/- for the import of unset and uncut diamonds against which they had to effect exports of total F.O.B. value of Rs. 43,34,340/- Under the imprest licence which they obtained the respondent imported unset and uncut diamonds and also fulfilled their export obligations but not during the original stipulated period which was six months from the date of import of their first consignment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(5)ECC226; 1989(39)ELT369(Bom)
1. The short question that falls for consideration in the present petition depends upon the interpretation of General Note (3) of 'O. Readymade Garments, Hosiery and Knitwear Products' of Appendix 17 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1983 to March 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Note).2. The undisputed facts are that the Petitioners had placed on their foreign suppliers Messrs Sugano Brothers and order for Snap Fasteners of the value of 5 per cent of the face value their import licence under the Registered Exporters Policy Scheme (REP). Before that the Petitioners had already imported Zip Fasteners on the very same licence to the extent of 5 per cent of the value of the said licence. The respondent - Customs authorities disputed the right of the Petitioners to import the fresh consignment of Snap Fasteners on the ground that under the said note (3), the Snap and Zip Fasteners taken together which could be imported here no more than 5 per cent of the face value of the ...
Tag this Judgment!