Mumbai Court November 1986 Judgments
MubarakdIn Bidi Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC582Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The instant appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.14/83/T.I.4ii/3ii dated 14.7.83 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Indore confiscating 8800 H.M. Biris valued Rs. 165/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 125/- and also demanding a duty of Rs. 83,317-90 on the goods removed without payment of Central Excise Duty besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-.2. Factual Backdrops: As a result of the surprise checking of the records and stocks of the appellant's factory - a biri manufacturer -8800 hand made biris in 22 pudas were found in excess of R.G.12A Register. During the course of checking of the factory some private records pertaining to manufacture of H.M. Biris were also recovered.After the scrutiny of private records it was found that the appellant had received 2,35,16,300 biris from different sattedars/persons during the period from 2.11.81 to 12.8.82, but only 16,48,750 H.M. Biris were account...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)21ITD143(Mum.)
1. These cross-appeals, pertaining to assessments for 1980-81 and 1981-82, were consolidated for hearing for convenience.2. The substantial dispute is in the appeal by the assessee for 1980-81 and the facts relating to the first ground are like this. Lucas Industries Ltd., a non-resident company, is the assessee. The accounting year ended on 31-7-1979 and 31-7-1980 for 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively. Lucas had made two agreements with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) on 25-4-1967 and 1-11-1970. Lucas was having technical know-how for the manufacture of fuel injection equipment for Bristol 'Orpheus' aircraft engines known as Types 701 and 703. Under the first agreement, Lucas agreed to give the technical information to HAL for the purposes of overhauling, repairing and otherwise servicing Lucas equipment. As consideration for the technical information and technical data to be furnished by Lucas to HAL, the latter had to pay 16,000 sterling to a Lucas nominated bank in England. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Anil Kumar Jalan
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)21ITD81(Mum.)
1. These appeals relating to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1974-75, 1978-79 and 1979-80 filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of the AAC, Central Range I, Bombay, deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is an individual. The assessee's wealth, among other assets, consisted of unquoted equity shares of various companies belonging to the Jalan group. These shares were valued by the WTO under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. On appeal, the AAC held that Rule 1D was merely directory and not mandatory and besides this rule was not an appropriate method of valuation of unquoted equity shares of companies, which were a going concern. The AAC, therefore, directed the WTO to value the unquoted equity shares of companies in accordance with the Board's Circular No. 332A, dated 31-3-1982 (see Taxmann's Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1985 edn., p. 1459) with the only modification that since the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Dewas Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)LC80(Bombay); 1987(27)ELT646(Bom)
Kania, C.J.1. By consent the appeal placed on Board for hearing and final disposal.2. Same appearances.3. This appeal is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge summarily dismissing the Writ Petition No. 2943 of 1986 on the ground that there was no reason why the petitioners (appellants) should not have availed of the alternative remedy. In our view, this order is not unstainable. The admitted facts show that the appellants imported a horizontal high speed ban saw for allow steel with cutting speed upto 120 metres per minute. According to the appellants, this item was covered under the O.G.L. by reason of Entry 94 of Appendix I Part 'B' of the Import Policy for April, 1985 to March, 1988. The said Entry runs as follows :'Horizontal High Speed Ban Saw for alloy steel with cutting speed (120 metres per minute or more)'.On a plain reading of this entry it appears that a horizontal high speed ban saw for alloy steel with cutting speed upto a maximum of 120 metres per minute can...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Kadar Husseinbhai Lakdawala Vs. Special Land Acquisition Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Bom18
1. This appeal arises out of the land acquisition proceedings.The appellant was the owner of the land in question viz. an area of 10 gunthas out of survey No. 150/2 (part) situate at village Kausa, District : Thane near Mumbra. It is unnecessary toset out the dates of Sections 4 and 6 Notifications. There is no dispute that though the notifications were duly published. The only question is as to whether the appellant-claimant received the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to enable him to make the claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the notice in respect of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act which was fixed for hearing on 9-8-1978 was served upon the appellant-claimant on 25-7-1968. Further, according to the Land Acquisition Officer, no claim was made by the appellant-claimant before the Special Land Acquisition Officer by or on behalf of the claimant at any time before ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemchand M. Singhania Vs. Shakuntala S. Tiwari (Smt.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR428
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Ice-cream may be a delight for taste, but it has landed its manufacturer in hot waters and all the said delight has been practically evaporated when engulfed in blunt legal contest. This, though is yet another litigation between the landlord and tenant, it has assumed unusual dimensions not only on the basis of the allegations of the landlord about permanent alterations having been made by the tenant to such a large extent that according to him, it is misnomer to call those as mere alterations, but more on account of a challenge canvassed at the very foundation of the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises located on Municipal Street No. 16 in Fanaswadi area of this metropolis. The respondent was inducted as monthly tenant in the said premises on the monthly rental of Rs. 105.60, for the purpose of conducting ice-cream business which was being carried by her husband who is h...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Trust Vs. Seventh Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)21ITD62(Mum.)
1. These two appeals relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), for the sake of convenience are disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a trust. The first grievance common to both the assessment years is that the claim, of exemption as laid down under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was wrongly not allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Here it will be necessary to point out that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has allowed the claim of exemption as laid down under Section 11 on the income from house property amounting to Rs. 47,197 for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 48,642 for the assessment year 1982-83 and the claim of exemption is, therefore, limited to the other incomes, which was only business income for the assessment year 1981-82 and business income and income from long-term capital gains for the assessment year 1982-83.Both the assessee's lear...
Tag this Judgment!Vapson Products and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC200; 1987(15)LC138(Bombay); 1987(27)ELT608(Bom)
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership concern of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The petitioner No. 1 was engaged in the manufacture of processed Synthetic Organic Dyes which were sold under the trade name 'Rapid fast' and 'Rapidogen' classifiable under Item 14D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). For the purpose of manufacture of these dyes, the firm used to purchase base dyes from the open market and those base dyes were supplied by the dealers on invoices handed over to the petitioners. The Central Government published Exemption Notification No. 180/61 on November 23, 1961 exempting the dyes specified in the Schedule thereto from the whole of the Excise Duty legible thereon, if such dyes were manufactured from any other dyes on which, interalia, the duty of excise had already been paid. The relevant portion of the Exemption Notification is as under :'EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONExemption to certain dyes, if manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Asim Gadighar Vs. Abdul Aziz S/O Lal Mohd Khureshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR341
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The petitioner-plaintiff herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 1982 in the District Court, Aurangabad, inter alia for declaration that the defendant is not entitled to use or copy the trade name and the copy right of he plaintiff firm 'Azeem Gadi Ghar' in any manner and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to use or carry on business in the said name. A claim by way of damages was also made.2. The plaintiff had earlier filed Regular Civil Suit No. 144 of 1981 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Aurangabad, for virtually the same reliefs aforesaid. The defendant, however, challenged the jurisdiction of that Court to entertain and try the said suit, which was in the nature of a passing off action, contending that, in view of section 105(c) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), such action would lie only in the District Court. The Court observed that the point of jurisdiction would be considered by framin...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. S.K. Gupta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)21ITD8(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1982-83 for which the relevant valuation date was 31-3-1982. The assessee claimed before the WTO deduction in respect of a loan of Rs. 91,000 taken by him from S.K. Gupta (P.) Ltd. The assessee was the director of the said company and as such, that loan given by the said company to the assessee was treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee in the income-tax proceedings. The WTO rejected the claim for deduction in the wealth-tax assessment proceedings on the ground that the said amount had been treated as deemed income in the hands of the assessee. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the said amount did not cease to be a liability of the assessee and as such, deduction was allowable. He directed the WTO to allow the deduction. The department is now in appeal before us and the ground raised in the memo of appeal is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »