Mumbai Court August 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.
Collector Of Customs Vs. Davey'S Engineering And Traders
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT297Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these three appeals are by the Collector of Customs, Bombay and they arise out of and are directed against a common order in appeal bearing Nos.S/49-46 to 48/861 dated 8-1-1987 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals lie in a small compass. The respondents M/s Davey's Engineering and Traders, a small scale industry, Actual Users imported 3 consignments of Metal Cutting Tools Hob cutters and snapper cutters and sought clearance against automaticlicence issued in the name of M/s Hindustan Steel and Metal Works, Bombay. The licence was valid for the import of items shown in Appendix 5 of AM 83 and was also issued in terms of Para 32(2) of AM 83 policy book. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of redrawing of copper and brass tubes, copper tubes and coils. The Customs however objected to the clearance on the ground that the goods imported were not required by the licence holder for use in his factory. The ...
Pfizer Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD233(Mum.)
1. The dividend income of your appellants be held to be the income received by them in Panama, in US Dollars converted into Indian Rupees as per rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 plus the tax deducted at source. 2. The 2nd Interim (1979) dividend of Rs. 68,04,000 be held not to be the income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration as it was not unconditionally made available in that year.2. The appellant herein, Pfizer Corporation, is a company assessed directly as a non-resident. The company is incorporated in Panama, USA.M/s. Pfizer Ltd., Bombay, is a subsidiary of the assessee-company in India. The assessee had declared income by way of dividend received from the Indian company and such dividend income has been brought to tax during the relevant assessment year which is the assessment year 1980-81 for which the accounting year is the year ended 30-11-1979. It would appear that the assessee requested, as in the past, that Rule 115 of the IT Rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›