Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD429a(Mum.)
1. This first appeal is by the assessee and the second by the department.2. The assessee is engaged in carrying on the business of livestock breeding, dairy farming and agricultural activities. The assessee has a stud farm. It had purchased and imported several horses from time to time with the intention of breeding horses. The horses were purchased for the permanent use in the business and not with the purpose or intention of selling them. It would appear that the assessee had mentioned in its balance sheet the horses as coming under stock-in-trade. Thus, for the year ended 31-3-1978, on the assets side of the balance sheet, the assessee showed livestock at cost of Rs. 3,31,673 as against the corresponding figure of Rs. 2,18,633 as on 31-3-1977. In its profit and loss account for that year, the company took the amount of Rs. 3,31,673 under the head 'Closing stock' livestock. The corresponding figure for the earlier year being Rs. 2,18,633 showed the same as opening stock. During the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR499
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. On the basis of credible information that a mechanised Indian Fishing Trawler loaded with contraband goods had been abandoned at Kedari Bunder, Bharatkhol, Taluka Shriwardhan in Raigad District, the Inspector of Customs rushed to the spot along with other members of his staff and panchas. This event occurred on 24th December, 1982. The information proved to be correct. The members of the raiding party noticed a trawler loaded with packages of goods of foreign origin. It was stuck up in the rock which made it difficult to be removed. Therefore, 39 packages which were found therein were brought to Shriwardhan jetty in another vessel and it is at Shriwardhan port that a detailed panchanama of contraband goods was made. It transpired that those bundles contained 39 packages of textiles of foreign origin were worth Rs. 6,76,020/- . The result was that the Customs Officials did find the contraband articles but not the persons concerned with the same. A search was, therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(47)ELT320(Bom)
1. By his common order dated 31st December, 1984 (Exhibit D), the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, partially allowed the four appeals before him covered by the said order to the extent that the imported products in all these four cases though were not assessable to countervailing duty under Item 18-IV of the C.E.T. were clearly assessable to countervailing duty under Item 68 of the C.E.T. The said four appeals were consequently allowed to the extent of classification of the imported products to countervailing duty under Item 68 of the C.E.T. Under the said order the petitioners became entitled to refund of the difference. Even so however, the petitioners were unable to obtain the refunds lawfully due to them. Hence these petitions.2. Hearing rival submissions of Mr. Seervai for the petitioners, and Mr. Desai for the respondents, I see no good reason why the petitioner should not be permitted to have the benefit of the appellate order dated 31st December, 1984 and consequently to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD354(Mum.)
1. Since these are cross-appeals, they are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. These appeals are filed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the orders passed by the ITO, levying additional income-tax of 37 per cent under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') against the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. These orders were passed ,by the ITO for the reason that the assessee did not declare any dividend at all within the period of twelve months immediately following the expiry of the previous years ended on 31-12-1977 and 31-12-1978, respectively, and that, therefore, the assessee-company fell within the mischief of Section 104. The ITO rejected the assessee's reasons for not declaring any dividends and levied the additional tax at the rate of 37 per cent in respect of both the years.3. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the action of the ITO and dismissed the assessee's appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(10)LC707Tri(Mum.)bai
(a) Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and decide what was, originally, a-Revision Petition before the Government of India, but transferred to the Tribunal, presumably pursue to Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act, for short) and; (b) abatement in consequence of the death of the Revision Petitioner (now Appellant) on or about 5-11-83 allegedly after deposit of Rs.10,000 only towards the penalty levied in adjudication.2. Shri Siwani, Advocate with Smt. Gupta purporting to appear for the deceased Appellant, conceded that, (a) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in terms of the proviso (c) to Section 131-B of the Act to hear and decide the matter. It is the Government of India that still continues to have the jurisdiction and the matter, accordingly, has to be re-transferred to the Government of India for disposal according to law. [1983 ELT 2517 - Sudesh Rattan Mahajan v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh] (b) the Revision transferred to the Tribunal pursuant t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC273Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The questions that arise for consideration in this Appeal are whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case - (a) the personal penalty in a sum of Rs.10,000/- levied on the Appellant is to be reduced; and (b) the absolute confiscation of the goods, in question (namely watches) is to be converted to one for redemption on the payment of a suitable fine.2. The Appellant admits the charge and pleads for the aforesaid reliefs in this Appeal. (a) the import of the watches, in question, is subject to license under the Import (Control) Order. They are, therefore, 'prohibited goods' as defined in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, 'the Act'), not having been duly licensed even according to the Appellant; (b) indeed, the charge against the Appellant was, precisely, one of violation of S. 111 (d), amongst others, on import of prohibited goods; (c) Once this is so, in terms of S. 112(i) of the Act, the Appellant was liable to be visited with a penalty not exceeding five...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD298(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Bombay.2. The assessee is a limited company and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1979-80. Among the claims before the ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings, one was that the preliminary expenses of Rs. 4,95,435 shown on the assets side of the balance sheet should be taken into account in working out the capital employed for the purpose of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').This claim was not accepted by the ITO. It was brought to our notice at the time of the hearing of the appeal that this claim was also made by grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but was, not considered by him. The assessee-company has, therefore, come up in the present appeal before us.3. The assessee's learned counsel, Shri Lalkaka, pointed out that the preliminary expenses of Rs. 4,95,435 appearing on the assets side of the balance sheet were for publi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC454Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.2. The appeal was itself filed on the 6th of April, 1985, notwithstanding that the order under appeal was, admittedly, served upon the Appellant on 21.12.1984 while he was under detention under COFEPOSA. (b) even prior to his release he was sick and under medical treatment in Jail as evidenced by a medical certificate to that effect (Annexure A); (c) after release as well, he continued to be sick and was under medical treatment for more than one and half months (medical certificate attached as Annexure B); (d) consequently, he could not file the Appeal and he prays for con-donation of the delay extending to a period of nearly seventeen days after the expiry of the period of limitation on or about 29th of March, 1985.4. It would appear from a perusal of Annexure B dated 3.4.1935 that the Appellant was under medical treatment for Infective Hepatatis from 12.2.1985 and advised rest for about one and half months i.e. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom198
Jamdar, J.1. All these writ petitions raise an important question about ambit and scope of the power conferred on the State Government by cl. (a) of sub-sec. (10) of S. 4 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, to nominate members of a Municipal School Board if the term of the office of the members of such a board expires during the suppression of electing authorised municipality. It is the purported or proposed action of the State government in exercise of this power that is questioned in these petitions.2. Writ Petition No. 1084 of 1983 is filed by the petitioners, who are respectively Chairman and Member of the Bhiwandi Municipal School Board which was constituted in July 1975 under S. 3 of the Bombay Primary Education Act. Bhiwandi Municipal Council which is the authorised Municipality within the meaning of S. 2(b) of the Primary Education Act was constituted after elections in Dec. 1974. the term of the Municipal Council was due to expire by the end of Nov. 1979. But, by the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom423; 1986(2)BomCR519
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The petitioner firm is a member of Sidhpura Co-operative Industrial Society. This co-operative Society owns, inter alia, premises on the first floor of 37 Sidhpura Co-operative Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Goregaon, Bombay, 400 062. The petitioner firm, by virtue of its membership of the said society, is put in possession of the said premises as an 'owner' thereof.2. It is the case of the petitioner that under an agreement dated 17th November, 1977 they gave their business which was Carried on in the said premises as well as the said premises to the respondents for the purpose of conducting the said business on the terms and conditions which are recorded in the said agreement. It was agreed between the parties under the said agreement that royalty at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month would be paid by the respondents to the petitioners. This agreement was renewed by an agreement da...
Tag this Judgment!