Mumbai Court May 1989 Judgments
Sunil Plastic Industry Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT576Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,10,89,692/- towards duty.2. Shri Satalvad, the learned advocate, on behalf of the applicants contended that the order of the Collector is prima facie bad in law and the demand confirmed by him is also time barred. He pointed out that the demand has been made right from the date of commencement of manufacture viz. 1/5/81 to 30/4/84, by issuing a show cause notice dated 25/7/84. The applicants have filed declaration for claiming exemption from the licensing control since they were manufacturing HOPE & PP monofilament yarn, which were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 194/72 and 242/79. The aforesaid exemption Notifications totally exempted HDPE monofilament yarn of 60 deniers and above and Poly Propylene monofilament yarn of the same deniers. In view of the declaration filed, they were not required to file any classification list. All the same, they were maintaining the record of...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: (1992)40ITD70(Mum.)
1. In this appeal the assessee is contesting the penalty of Rs. 2 crores imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. The assessee is a well known public limited company engaged in the cement industry. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant previous year ended on 31st July, 1983.3. The penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee on the ground that it had made false claim of higher depreciation in respect of the following : 4. Before we go further into the matter, it would be necessary to mention certain undisputed facts borne out from the material already available on record : (a) The assessee has its Head Office in Bombay with Branch Offices at various places in the country. (b) The assessee has 23 units of production and 17 factories spread all over the country. (c) The assessee has a clean record inasmuch as all along in the past, there were no serious disputes regarding depreciation claimed/allowed except perhaps, certain minor routine ones. (d) The assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Sixteenth Income-tax Officer Vs. M. A. Chandy.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]32ITD388(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri. B. M. Kothari, Accountant Member - The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order passed by the C. I. T. (Appeals) for A. Y. 1981-82 raising the following grounds of appeal :-'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to get credit, on the entire amount of tax deducted at source by the Nigerian company from the foreign income of the assessee even through only 50% of the foreign income is taxed in India the assessee has been subjected to Indian income-tax after granting relief under section 80RRA of the I. T. Act.Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) erred in overlooking the fact that D. I. T. relief has to be restricted to the tax paid in both countries on the doubly taxed income and that where only 50% of the foreign income is taxed in India the assessee cannot be held to have been doubly taxed on the whole foreign income and he cannot be given credit for the whole tax paid ab...
Tag this Judgment!Unipal Plastic Industry Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC441Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda bearing No. 3/83 dated 10/6/83, passed by him in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 35(A) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: The appellants are the manufacturers of dutiable plastic articles falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item, 15A(2). They were following the procedure prescribed under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules in respect of the duty paid inputs viz. H.D.P. Granules. These granules were manufactured by M/s Polyolefine. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and cleared on payment of duty under various gate passes to their distributor M/s. Hochest Dyes and Chemicals, where they were stored in their godown and later on supplied to the appellants in the original packing. When the inputs were received in the appellants' factory, D-3 declarations were regularly filed along with the photocopies of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Prabhudas Modi Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT791Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order-in-original bearing No.S/14-4-1208/83 Pint/(SD/INT/NTFD/749/83), dated 18-8-1984 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (P), Bombay, imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,0007- under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: On the basis of an information, search of the godown premises of the appellant was carried out on 28-12-1983, as a result of which 7 packages containing Video Cassettes and stereo radio cassette players valued at Rs. 1,68,000/- (m.v) were seized from the loft of the godown. The seizure was effected in the presence of one Shri Aboo Backer Shaikh, Mukadam of the godown - the paid employee of the appellant. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Asstt.Collector the appellant as well as the godown keeper Aboo Backer Shaikh were imposed penalties apart from confiscating the goods of foreign origin. The present appeal by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Abdulla Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD700(Mum.)
Assessment made by Wealth Tax Officer following Valuation Officer's report is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue.The assessing officer is bound under law to adopt the same valuation as has been determined by the DVO. In fact, it is mandatory upon the assessing officer to follow this valuation. He cannot substitute his own opinion as against the opinion of the DVO once a reference under section 16A on the question of valuation has been made. In the present case, the assessing officer has merely adopted the valuation as determined by the DVO. Therefore, he cannot be said to have committed any error in doing so. Therefore, the order passed by the assessing officer was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Where reference to valuation officer made by Wealth Tax Officer, Wealth Tax Officer is bound to adopt the same value as determined by Valuation Officer.1. This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shirley D. Swadi Vs. Eighth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD65(Mum)
ORDERShri B. S. Ahuja, Judicial Member - The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT under sec. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82.2. The CIT on going through the assessment order was of the opinion that it was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial the interests of revenue because depreciation on two foreign-made cars had been allowed, though they were acquired after 28-2-1975 and had not been used in a business of running them on hire for tourists. The allowance of depreciation was, thus, in violation of the provisions contained in the secone proviso to sec. 32(1) (ii). He, therefore, served notice on the assessee to show cause why depreciation on two Peugeot bearing Nos. MMG 3466 and 4830 should not be withdrawn.3. The facts were that the two cars had actually been given on hire to the European Asian Bank on a monthly rent of Rs. 80,000. The assessees case was that her business was of running cars on hire for tourists and these two cars were also ...
Tag this Judgment!Paterson Engg. Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD454(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri L. N. Aggarwal, Judicial Member - These are five appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30-5-1980 for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is a consolidated one for all the five years and common questions are involved in these appeals hence, they are disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The following grounds had been taken by the assessee :1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as in facts.2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer levying interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts are that the assessee is a limited company. It had received loans from various parties including directors of the company and as such interest was payable on such loans. During all these assessment years, the assessee had neither paid the interest to the...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Shah Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD532(Mum.)
1. In this appeal by the assessee against the order of the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Bombay, dated 10-4-1985 for the assessment year 1982-83, the only issue which arises for consideration is whether a person suffering from heart disease is eligible to a deduction of Rs. 10,000 Under Section 80-U of the Act.2. The assessee, an individual in this case aged 68 years, was suffering from heart disease. Initially, a total income of Rs. 41,225 was declared. However, subsequently, this income was revised to Rs. 31,255 after availing of the deduction of Rs. 10,000 Under Section 80-U. The case of the assessee was that since he was suffering from Ischaemic heart condition which reduced his earning capacity, he was entitled to the deduction Under Section 80-U. The Income-tax Officer, however, concluded that such a disease could not be termed as a disability or handicap which reduced the earning capacity of the assessee. After examining the returns of income for subsequent years on merits, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›