Mumbai Court January 1987 Judgments
Polychem Limited and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC690Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Two revision applications filed before the Govt. of India against the order bearing No. 1010/1013 of 1980, dated 29.11.1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as appeals.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be stated as under : The clearing agents of M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd., one of the appellants herein, sought clearance of 10 barrels said to have been whisky concentrate against their Import Licence No. P/U/2648787, dated 29th September 1972. The Customs, however, objected to the clearance that what was imported was malt scotch whisky and not malt whisky concentrate. After investigation, show cause notices were issued to M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Polychem Ltd. and two Directors, namely, Shri Tanil R. Kilachand and Dr. S.M. Shah of M/s. Polychem Ltd., requiring them to show cause as to why the imported goods should not be confiscated and...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Gulshanrai Sachdev
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD153(Mum.)
1. As common points are involved in these appeals by the revenue for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, they are heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is proprietor of Modern Movies which is a film distributing concern. He is also partner in Saishyam Pictures, which firm is also distributor of films.3. The first controversy is regarding the valuation of assessee's proprietary interest in Modern Movies. In the assessment year 1979-80 the assessee had shown negative figure of Rs. 8,45,816 as net wealth in respect of this proprietary concern as on 30-5-1978. The WTO noticed that though the net book value of most of the motion pictures in a film distribution concern was nil by virtue of operation of Rule 9B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (which allows amortization at the rate of 100 per cent if the film is run for 90 days in the previous year), according to the WTO the film still had considerable market value. The WTO valued the assessee's rights...
Tag this Judgment!Eve'S Apparel Vs. First Income-Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD121(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assesses relates to the assessment year 1977-78.The accounting year of the assessee ended on 31-12-1976. During the year, a fire broke out in the factory premises on 27-9-1976 causing loss to the assessee. The assets involved in fire had been insured. The assessee put claim of Rs. 3,59,500 before the insurance company.The insurance company accepted the claim of Rs. 3,38,500. The particulars are as follows :Items Claim made Claim settled Rs. Rs.Machinery and other fixed assets 1 ,42,900 1,42,900Furniture and fittings 27,000 27,000Stock 1,89,600 1,68,600 -------- -------- 2. We are concerned with amount of compensation pertaining to machinery. The assessed credited Rs. 70,834 in the profit and loss account being an excess amount received from insurance company and offered for taxation. However, during the assessment proceeding, the stand taken by the assesses was that no part of the amount relating to machinery was assessable to tax because the machinery had been p...
Tag this Judgment!Fifth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Vishwanath Mittal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD128(Mum.)
1. This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the AAC relating to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee is an individual. He is a partner in two firms, namely : (i) Nylo Plastic Industries, and (ii) Ashok Trading Co. They own industrial undertakings. It is not in dispute that the partner is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The following two grounds have been taken by the revenue in this appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AAC erred in directing the WTO to give exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in excess of the credit balance in the capital account of the assessee in the industrial undertaking wherein he is a partner. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AAC erred in directing the WTO to recompute the value of the assessee's interest in the firm on the lines mentioned in her order and allow exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Sath Gwaldas Mathuradas Mohata Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Bom)48; [1987]165ITR620(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The following question has been referred at the instant of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'On a true interpretation of section 45 read with section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was the Tribunal right in holding that the amount received by the assessee on redemption of preference shares was liable to be taxed under the head 'capital gains' ?'.2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee had purchased 1,000 cumulative fully paid redeemable preference shares of Mr. R.S. Rekchand Spinning and Weaving Mills (P) Ltd., Hinganghat, from Shri Girdhardas Mohota before 1970. The purchase price was Rs. 50 per shares an against the fully paid-up value of the Rs. 100 per share. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the company redeemed the preference shares held by the assessee by payment of Rs. 1,00,000 for 1,000 shares. A sum of Rs. 36,360 was paid by the company in addition towards dividend. Th...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Bom50; 1987(12)ECC23; 1987(29)ELT872(Bom)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash an order rejecting an application for refund of Additional Duty and a consequential direction to respondents to pay the same along with interest and costs.2. Points that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the following background :-In 1982-83, under two Bills of Entry, petitioner imported metallised polyester film in different quantities. The import was assessed to various duties, including Additional Duty. Under the latter head, a total sum of Rs. 17,445.96 P. was paid. In November 1985, petitioner moved the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), alleging that the Additional Duty had been wrongly recovered, that this was pursuant to a mistake of law entertained by both the parties, that metallised polyester film was not liable to Additional Duty, it having been so held in Messrs. Precise Impex (P) Ltd. V. The Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in : 1985ECR1111(Madras) , ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR530(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference arises at the instance of the Revenue and raises two questions :1 '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the action of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing relief under section 80J of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80J despite the fact that the requirements of section 80J(4) were not fulfilled and the computation of capital was not made in accordance with rule 19A ?'2. The answer to the second question has, counsel are agreed, to be given in the negative and in favour of the Revenue having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) . The question is so answered.3. The first question arises because of the following :The Income-tax Officer had rejected the assessee'...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit Kumar Dipchand Runwal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)LC305(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT291(Bom)
ORDERDharmadhikari, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Other side waives notice.Heard both sides.2. From the material placed on record, it appears that the crucial question viz. Whether the goods seized are manufactured 'Zarda' within the contemplation of Entry 411(5) has not been considered by the appellate authority, though in the Memo of Appeal the said contention seems to have been raised. According to Shri Desai, the said contention was not specifically argued before the appellate authority and, therefore, was not considered. This may be so. But, in our view, since it is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to put forward his case, in the ends of justice at least he should be given an opportunity to put forward his case in that behalf before the appellate authority. Hence the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 9.10.1986 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the question as to whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Berar Oil Industry Vs. National Berar Oil Industry Workers' Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR402; (1994)IIILLJ418Bom; 1987MhLJ519
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner employer has challenged the preliminary order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in thiswrit petition.2. The respondent union has filed the instant complaint case under Sections 28 and 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act'), challenging as unfair labour practice the action taken by the petitioner in superannuating by giving 30 days' notice as many as 84 employees on the ground that 1 they have either completed 55 years of age or 25 years of service by taking for the first time recourse to the Standing Order No. 20 of the Standing Orders framed under Section 30 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (for short the C.P. Act.).3. By amending its complaint case the respondent union raised a contention that since the application of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short the B.I.R. Act.) was withdrawn...
Tag this Judgment!Luis Roberto Vaz Vs. Roque Silvestre Vaz and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom300
ORDER1. This Revision Application is directed against the order dt. 26th Aug. 1986, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, allowed an application filed by the respondents under Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. and ordered that Smt. Laura Vaz, IdelfonsoVazand his wife Beniza Vaz be impleaded as defendants in the suit.2. The relevant facts may be stated The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions on the grounds that he is the owner in possession of a property situated at Colva. Adjoining the said property, there is a property belonging to the respondents.' The respondents started construction of a building in their own property without, however, keeping the proper setback. This construction is, therefore, according to the petitioner, illegal. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was filed, praying that the respondents be restrained from undertaking the work of any construction and carrying on with the same in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »