Mumbai Court May 1986 Judgments
Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD226(Mum.)
1. This Special Bench was constituted to consider the question whether provisions of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') are applicable to assessment year 1976-77, irrespective of previous year followed by the assessee. A Bombay Bench had expressed the opinion that it would, while a Madras Bench had held that Section 40A(8) would apply only to expenditure on interest incurred after 1-4-1976.2. The assessee-company manufactures Pharmaceuticals, drugs and milk products. Its accounting year ended on 30-6-1975 which is relevant for the assessment year 1976-77 (year under consideration). The ITO had disallowed under Section 40A(8) Rs. 3,11,040. The only discussion in the assessment order as per paragraph 10 is that (assessee) has correctly shown disallowance at the rate of 15 per cent of Rs. 20,73,598 (out of interest paid) amounting to Rs. 3,22,040. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the disallowance under Section 40A...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC78Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, against the Order No. V-2(22) 8/80/1190, dated 27-1-1983 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, under which he allowed the first appeal of the Respondents herein in part and granted refund of handloom cess paid by the respondents for the period upto 5-8-1977. The amount involved is Rs. 2,061.32 ps. It has been contended in the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, that since the cause for refund arose on 13-10-1978 through the issue of the Govt. of India's Notification No. SO 3108, dated 13-10-1978 the claim for refund filed by the Respondents on 10-7-1979 was received after a period of six months from the date of the Govt. of India's Notification and hence it was correctly rejected as time barred. It has accordingly been prayed on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, that the order of the Appellate Collector shou...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Kamaljit Singh.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1986
Reported in: [1986]17ITD610(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri R. L. Sangani, Judicial Member - These two appeals by the department relate to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. On the relevant valuation dates, the assessee held 160 equity shares of Skefe-Co. India Bearing Co. Ltd. The shares of the said company were not quoted at the stock exchange. Consequently, the valuation had to be done in accordance with the provisions of rule 1D if the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (the Rules). The assessee in his computation under the said rule did not treat the amount of advance tax paid by the company as an asset in accordance with the provisions in clause (i) (a) of Explanation II of rule 1D and further for determining the extent of excess over the tax payable with reference to book profits under clause (ii) (e) of the said Explanation did not deduct the amount of advanced tax paid from the amount representing provision for taxation. The WTO, on the other hand, deducted the amount of advance tax paid from the amount representing provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Gopal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC925Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Madan Gopal has filed an application dated 17-12-1981 under old Section 131 of the Customs Act to the Government of India against the Board's Order No. 123 of 1981 (F.No. 1/144/70-CXV(A)/AU(A) dated 13-3-1981 confirming the order No. Cust/5/70(ll/69) dated 16-3-1970 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. This application has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131B ibid and is to be treated as an appeal before us. The appeal is against the Collector's order as confirmed by the Board under which he confiscated ten bars of gold recovered from the appellant at Ratlam Station by the Officers of Customs and Central Excise and levy of a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Mittal has contested the recovery of gold from the appellant. He has advanced several reasons in support of his contentions. These are that the appellant did not sign the panchnama, that the panchnama was prepared by the two persons who...
Tag this Judgment!Chemicals and Aromatics Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD298(Mum.)
1. The question in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to a short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,66,000.2. The assessee is a firm. The partners of the firm along with two other groups of persons, who could be described as the Dadia Group and Parekh Group, floated a company called Vishal Electronics (P.) Ltd. Initially the individual partners were the shareholders. For the purpose of circulating capital of this company, the assessee-firm had advanced certain funds. These advances date back to 1973. The company had been crediting the assessee's loan account with interest.3. This company never did well. In fact, by 1977, their accumulated losses were of Rs. 10 lakhs as against the capital of Rs. 18 lakhs. He had never declared any dividend. By 3-3-1977, the company owed the assessee Rs. 2,80,000 and odd.4. On 29-12-1977, the company purported to issue fresh shares and the credit balance standing in the name of the assessee was treated as the payments to be effected towards the ac...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Volkart Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC96Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s G.P. Volkart Ltd. have filed an application dated 9-5-1980 under old Section 131 of the Customs Act to the Government of India and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B ibid and has to be treated as an appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal is against the Order No. S/14-779/76 Pint dated 12-10-1977 of the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay as modified by the Order No. 227A of 1979 dated 26-11-1979 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs under which m.v. Henriette Maersk has been confiscated by the Addl. Collector under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and permitted to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation.2. On behalf of the appellant Kum. Manjula Sen briefly dealt with the facts of the case relating to the arrival of the ship in Bombay harbour and its rummage on 29-12-1976 and 30-12-1976 resulting in recovery of various foreign goods on both those days totally valued at Rs. 2,38,816/-at ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Central India Spinning, Weaving and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR226
S.C. Pratap, J.1. The petitioner-Company - the Central India Spinning, Weaving & Manufacturing Company Limited - was incorporated in 1874. It was, in all probability, the first industrial enterprise of Tatas and the forerunner of their many other pioneering ventures in a variety of fields touching the economic, social, educational and cultural life of this country.2. In the course of its career spanning over a century and mere, the Company passed through several vicissitudes. The last twenty years particularly, witnessed its pendulum widely swinging between profit and loss - less profits and more losses. And in these very recent years, matters turned from bad to worse. Efforts to salvage the situation did not cut much ice. Negotiations vis-a-vis government, financial institutions and others also suffered the same fate. All the combined experience and expertise failed to resolve the deepening crisis. According to the management, the Company reached a point of no return. The loss in 1984...
Tag this Judgment!Mekaster Private Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC42Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Mekaster Private Limited have filed this appeal against the Order No. S/10-1194/A/83ACC/ S/9-35/83 A, dated 14-10-1985 of the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay. The appeal is against the Collector's order under which he ordered levy of a sum of Rs. 5,30,772/- in terms of the bond executed by the Appellants for submitting the licence for the import of the goods in question. An amount of Rs. 1,32,693/- held in deposit was appropriated against the sum demanded by the Collector leaving a balance amount of Rs. 3,98,079/-. Alongwith this appeal, M/s. Mekaster Private Limited filed an application for waiving the deposit of Rs. 3,98,D79/- and staying its recovery. The Tribunal under their Order No. CSP(BOM)406/85. dated 10-1-1986 directed M/s. Mekaster Private Limited to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash within four weeks from 10-1-1986 and to produce proof of compliance within five weeks from that date. The Appellants were informed that in case of failure, their app...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Century Spinning and Weaving Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC661Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I has filed this application under Section 35G to make a reference to the Bombay High Court on clarification of the points of law arising out of the order of this Tribunal No. 1259/85-WRB (ED BOM A No. 164 of 84) dated 25-10-1985 on the Collector's Appeal No. M-1488/BI-477/84. As per the application, the points which are required to be referred to the High Court for clarification, are: (1) Payment of interest on yarn duty under Rule 49A irrespective of the fabrics being cleared for home consumption or for export, (2) The interest leviable under Rule 49A on the amount of duty on yarn being different from the duty payable under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and (3) The Department's right to recover interest under Rule 49A irrespective of whether the fabrics are cleared for home consumption or for export.2. Appearing on behalf of the Collector, the learned SDR drew our attention to the points for reference to the High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Sushilaben A. Mafatlal Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD189(Mum.)
1. The appeal by Smt. Sushilaben A. Mafatlal, WT Appeal No. 1795 (Bom.) of 1982, was referred to the Special Bench for deciding the following question : Whether the amount of Rs. 78,820 lying in the CDS account of the assessee constituted an asset under Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and, therefore, includible in the net wealth of the assessee The remaining parties before us are interveners. The reference to the Special Bench became necessary because of conflict of decision between the various Benches of the Tribunal and the Bench hearing the appeal under question was of the opinion that the second decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of WTO v. S.D. Nargolwala [1983] 5 ITD 690 requires reconsideration, because the nature of deposit in the Compulsory Deposit Scheme is some sort of a fixed deposit and it is very difficult to infer that such a fixed deposit does not constitute an asset under Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').2. We have heard the learned c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »