Mumbai Court March 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
income-tax Officer Vs. Garware Plastics and Polyesters
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD30(Mum.)
1. As common points are involved in both these appeals by the revenue, they were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order.Revenue is aggrieved against the orders of CIT (Appeals).2. The assessee is a private limited company which started manufacturing polyester film/sheet from saturated polyester polymer chips at Aurangabad from 8-1-1976. The account year under consideration is ending 30-9-1976 relevant for assessment year 1977-78. For assessment year 1978-79, the account year ended on 30-9-1977. Allowability of Central Excise liability of Rs. 6,03,392 in asst. year 1977-78 and Rs. 32,22,558 in asst. year 1978-79 : Assessee-company had claimed the aforesaid liability on the basis of Collector of Central Excise's order dated 12-6-1980 that excise duty on polyester film manufactured by the assessee was payable @ 30% as against 1% paid by assessee. Income-tax Officer in asst. year 1977-78 had rejected the said claim on the ground that the liability had arisen much after...
Altaf V. Isani Vs. Third Gift-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD178(Mum.)
1. These gift-tax appeals, all by the revenue, were for the sake of convenience, heard together. They arise out of identical set of facts.2. The appeals relate to gift-tax assessment, relating to years 1979-80 and 1980-81, framed against ten different individuals. They are : Of the above, parties at Sl. Nos. 7 and 9 were minors at the material time relating to these assessments.3. There are two family groups - Virani group and Isani group. The ten assessees, whose names are listed in the earlier para, are members of either Virani group or Isani group. The assessees, barring the minors were partners of three firms each having a certain specified share which varied from firm to firm and partner to partner, while the minors (Leila and Razia) had been admitted to the benefits thereof. The firms were (1) M/s. Isani Enterprises, (2) M/s. Ismail Jusab Virani, and (3) M/s. Isani Traders. Not all the assessees were partners in all the three firms. While few were partners in one, the compositio...
Abdul Rehman Ibrahim Telli Vs. K.G. Bansal, First Income-tax Officer a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR621(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This appeal assails the order of summary dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this appeal is the assessment year 1975-76. The appellant owned immovable property at Marol and Parjapur in the registration sub-district of Bandra in Bombay. The appellant agreed to sell a part of this property (now called 'the said land') on May 17, 1972. Clause 17 of the agreement for gale contained the appellant's declaration that the said land was assessed to land revenue as agricultural land. On December 3, 1972, the said land was conveyed to the ultimate purchaser thereof. For the purposes of his income-tax assessment, the appellant offered the capital gain made on the sale of the said land for taxation. On September 22, 1979, the order of assessment was passed and capital gains tax was levied on the capital gain made as aforesaid. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax, on appeal, ordered a recomputation and...
Fatehsinh Gaikwar of Baroda Vs. A.D. Gupta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR529(Bom)
Khatri, J.1. This suit in substance is for a declaration that the two trust deeds dated March 14, 1959, are valid and operative and that the two properties which are the subject-matter thereof are not liable to attachment for recovery of arrears of income-tax from the late H. H. Maharaja Fatehsinh Gaikwar of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the settlor'). A number of consequential reliefs are claimed. The main prayer is for setting aside the two attachments dated 25th and 27th July, 1970, ordered by the 1st defendant and his order dated August 10, 1971, whereby he has upheld the validity of the two attachments. It is not necessary to detail other consequential reliefs, inasmuch as both sides are agreed that if the aforesaid impugned order is upheld, the suit will have to be dismissed in its entirety otherwise; it will have to be decreed in full.2. Almost all the material facts are admitted. The settlor is the father of the present plaintiff, H. H. Maharaja Fatehsinh Gaikwar. By the ...
Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. First Labour Cou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR695; (1989)ILLJ577Bom; 1987MhLJ1020
1. This petition by Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation ('Marketing Federation' for short) is directed against the order passed by the Labour Court, Akola upon an application by 27 persons claiming to be the employees of the petitioner, directing payment of Rs. 300/- as bonus to each of them.2. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and carries on the activity of marketing and is an apex body of Marketing Societies in the State of Maharashtra and was appointed by the State of Maharashtra as its Chief Agent for the procurement of raw cotton as well as for the implementation of the other provisions of the Act including processing of raw cotton. disposal of cotton seed, etc., under a Notification promulgated under the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971. The petitioner obtained licenses from various Agricultural produce Market Committees for enabling it to carry out its activi...
Indian Lead Private Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC157
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The 1st petitioners manufacture lead and load alloys for which purpose they import lead scrap. Prior to 1st March, 1981 their imports were liable to countervailing duty under item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt. Act, 1944. On 1st March, 1981 the said Act was amended and item 27A was introduced which prescribed a rate for, inter alia, waste and scrap lead.2. On 1st March, 1981 a notification was issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules whereby the Central Government exempted 'waste and scrap of copper, zinc, aluminium and lead, falling under item Nos. 26A, 26B, 27 and 27A respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to condition that--(a) such waste and scrap are manufactured from copper, zinc, aluminium or lead falling under item Nos. 26A, 26B, 27 and 27A respectively of the said First Schedule on which appropriat...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Kolhapur Oxygen and Acetylene
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD20(Mum.)
1. These cross appeals, one by the revenue and the other by the assesses, pertain to the assessment year 1982-83.2. The assesses is a company carrying on a certain business activity.In the assessment, a claim for depreciation and investment allowance had been made in respect of certain barges which had been acquired during the relevant accounting year on an investment of more than Rs. 20 lakhs. The Income-tax Officer rejected both the claims. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed depreciation under Section 32 but sustained the disallowance for investment allowance under Section 32A. Objecting to the allowance given under Section 32, the revenue is in appeal. Aggrieved by the disallowance of investment allowance, the assessee has preferred an appeal.3. We will first of all take up the question of depreciation. The ITO rejected the claim mainly on the reason that hiring of barges is not business of the assessee. The CIT(A) did not accept the view of the ITO. At the hearing, S...
Smt. Ana Maria Cardozo Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD24(Mum.)
1. These two groups of appeal were consolidated as they raise one common question of law.2. Ana Maria Cardozo is the assessee in the first group in which assessments for 1977-78 to 1980-81 are involved. The assessee in the other group is Philip Cardozo and the assessments are for the same years.3. Ana Maria Cardozo and Philip Cardozo have bank deposits in Non-resident (External) Account---NR(E) Account. These deposits were claimed to be exempt under Section 6 of the Wealth-tax Act in the assessments under consideration. In assessment years 1977-78 and 1979-80, the Wealth-tax Officer granted exemption in the regular assessments passed. This is the situation in the case of both Ana Maria Cardozo and Philip Cardozo. The Wealth-tax Officer, thereafter, took up rectification proceedings under Section 35 and withdrew the exemption.Such rectification orders were passed in the case of both Ana Maria Cardozo and Philip Cardozo. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had appealed and the Appellate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›