Mumbai Court January 1990 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.
Patel Metal Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC179Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda bearing No. 29/Demand/89 dated 27.6.89 confirming the demand for an amount of Rs.88,656.59 against the appellants for a period from 25.12.85 to 6.1.86 and holding that the demand issued by him for the period earlier thereof is not enforceable because the extended period of limitation invoked is not applicable.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the learned advocate for the appellants, took us through the show cause notice dated 25.6.86 issued by the Supdt. covering the period from 4.12.85 to 6.1.86. From this show cause notice, we observe that no allegation of suppression or fraud has been made. All the same, the show cause notice traversed beyond a normal period of six months. Next Shri Willingdon Christian took us through the show cause notice issued by the Additional Collector which is dated 29.8.88 covering the same period. In the show cause notice by the Additional Collec...
Fourth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Doshibai N. Jeejibhoy.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD630(Mum)
ORDERGarg, AM - These two appeals are by the revenue against the orders of the CWT (A) for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. Since they raise a common dispute regarding valuation of the property, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee was the owner of Arthur Road property. It was fully occupied by the tenants and there was no vacant land available. Its value in the wealth-tax returns was being declared on rent capitalisation method at Rs. 76,000 which was also stated to have been accepted by the WTO up to the assessment year 1980-81. While making the assessments of these two years, the WTO, however, noticed that the property was subject-matter of acquisition Officer, Bombay and BSD Municipal Corporation for a consideration of Rs. 26,35,390 and a solatium of Rs. 13,49,871 as evidenced by the Award dated 14-7-1983. He, therefore, considered the fair market value of the property at Rs. 39,85,561 in both the years under con...
Prashant Dhondiram Kondke Vs. Fifth Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD182(Mum)
ORDERGarg, AM - This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the AAC for the assessment year 1981-82.2. The assessee was a partner in four firms, namely, M/s. Kamakshi Pictures, M/s. Kamakshi Chitra Prakashan, M/s. Kamakshi Chitra and M/s. Vijay Pictures. In response to a query by the WTO, it was stated by the assessee that it was not possible to furnish the overflow receipts from the various firms in which he was a partner. The WTO observed that the firms in which the assessee was a partner have distribution rights of various films and, as such, the prints were to be taken as the assets of the firms and, accordingly the share of the assessee was required to be worked out. However, in the absence of details, an amount of Rs. 1 lac was estimated and added in respect of the net wealth declared, subject to rectification of the assessment.3. In appeal, the AAC noticed that in case of other co-partners, namely, Vijay D. Kondke and Shewantibai D. Kondke, proceedings under section 2...
Shri Swami Samarth Cement Depot Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-1990
Reported in: [1990]32ITD806(Mum)
ORDERAggarwal, Judicial Member - This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT (A) dt. 10-8-87 for the assessment year 1983-84. The following grounds have been taken :-(1) CIT (A) erred by disallowing short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,52,075 being the loss on sale of shares of Balaji Investments Ltd.(2) CIT (A) erred in holding that the transfer was complete only on transfer of shares in the share register of the company in the name of the partner.(3) CIT (A) failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, the shares can be transferred by the subsequent purchaser in his name in the records of the company at any time before the book closure of the company and that it was not necessary that immediately on receipt of shares, he has to get them transferred in his own name.(4) CIT (A) erred in disallowing Rs. 2,000 out of professional charges paid to architect and in treating it as a capital expenditure.2. The first ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›