Mumbai Court March 1991 Judgments
Jumbo Circus Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1991
Reported in: (1992)(42)LC406Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Nair, the ld. Consultant on behalf of the applicants/Appellants pleaded that the appeal itself may be taken up for hearing, since a live Chimpanzee is involved and the main issue in the appeal is the absolute confiscation of the same. The stay application is in respect of the penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the appellants.2. After getting concurrence from Shri Mondal, the ld. SDR, for the appeal being taken up for hearing, we have decided to go into the appeal itself.3. Shri Nair submitted that the appellants arc a circus company. They had been to Kuwait for performing the circus. At that time, the sponsor presented a gift of Chimpanzee in an open function. The Embassy officials were also present in the function. The first Secretary of Indian Embassy in Kuwait has given a letter for rendering all possible assistance to the appellant for the Chimpanzee to be taken to India by the appellants. On arrival in India, the appellants applied for a Customs Clearance Permit. They also ...
Tag this Judgment!Fimco Elecon (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC563Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order of the Collector (Appeals), bearing No. GSM-1823/89-Ahmedabad dated 08-9-1989 rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. Facts of the case are that the appellants, who are the manufacturers of Dump loaders, also manufacture components such as air motors, wheel rim assembly, pistons. In some cases these components are also cleared as such outside the factory. Two such clearances have taken place under GP 1 No. 67 dt. 07-6-1987 and GP 1 No. 45 dated 16-5-1987. However, due to labour trouble the consignment could not be received in the factory of the consignee and they have been received back on 4-1-1988. The appellants filed an intimation before the excise authorities indicating the aforesaid position of the return and also indicating that they are availing of MODVAT credit in respect of duty paid on these components.MODVAT credit of duty amounting to Rs. 9791.40 was however denied to them on the ground that these are duty paid goods, removed out...
Tag this Judgment!Shashi Raj Kapoor Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD249(Mum.)
1. These three appeals are by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalties levied by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment years 1979-80,1980-81 and 1982-83. For the sake of convenience, all the appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 22-10-1982, a search was carried out at the office and residence of the assessee and also at the residence of Mr. Narendra Jaitly, the Chief Executive of Film walas, a concern closely connected with the assessee. Certain books and documents along with a cash of Rs. 1,48,524 were seized therein. The cash was seized from Mr. Narendra Jaitly's residence but claimed to have been given to him by the assessee. As it was not properly explained, it was retained under Section 132(5) of the Act by an order dated 20th January, 1983, wherein the estimated concealed income was made at Rs. 11 lacs for the assessment year 1983-84...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pfizer Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR626(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law for our opinion. The question is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for each of the assessment years under consideration up to the date of the receipt of the refund order for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 by the assessee ?' 2. Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Revenue, in the first instance, stated that the question is covered by a Full Bench judgement of our court in the case of CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. : [1984]146ITR452(Bom) , in favour of the Revenue. However, Shri Irani, learned counsel for the assessee, invited our attention to our court's subsequent judgment in the case of CIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., [1988] 169 ITR 314, in which, after referring to th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Bom)127; [1992]193ITR349(Bom); 1992(1)MhLj764
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1971-72, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 2. At the instance of the Commissioner : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of both the amounts of Rs. 12,84,200 and Rs. 14,39,543, respectively, being the actual payment of bonus and the provision for the payment of bonus during the previous year ?' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the following amounts were part of the profit attributable to its priority industry for the purpose of deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : (i) Rs. 3,50,000, being the technical collaboration fees received from Messrs. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills as part of th...
Tag this Judgment!Empire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Bom)257; [1992]193ITR295(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee. It relates to the assessment year 1973-74. By its order under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question for law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax against the non-allowance of interest by the Income-tax Officer under section 214/244 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the order giving effect to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal competent ?' 2. The assessee had, it is common ground, paid advance tax of Rs. 24,47,850. On regular assessment completed under section 143(3), the Income-tax Officer raised a demand under section 156 of the Act, of Rs. 7,27,401 inclusive of interest of Rs. 56,161. By an order dated June 27, 1974, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allo...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Gagalbhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Bom)1
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this reference relating to the assessee's assessment year 1969-70, the Tribunal has referred to this court at the instance of the assessee the following question of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,14,250 declared as dividend by erstwhile Gagalbhai Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. on September 2, 1968, was liable to be taxed as income in the hands of the assessee-company ?' 2. The assessee is a company. The relevant previous year is the financial year ending on March 31, 1969. On September 2, 1968, Messrs. Gagalbhai Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'the jute company') declared dividend. The assessee-company, being that company's major shareholder, received Rs. 2,14,250 as dividend. However, even before this date, negotiations were going on between the assessee-company and the jute company for amalgamation. Eventually, on Septemb...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Synthetic and Chemical Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Bom)372
T. D. SUGLA, J. :The Tribunal has referred to this Court only one question of law in this reference relating to the assessees assessment for asst. yr. 1966-67. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the instructions, blueprints, process charts, periodical reports and the manuals relating to the process know-how contained in the form of a file can be treated as books and would, therefore, constitute plant as defined in s. 43(3) for the purposes of grant of depreciation allowance under s. 32 and development rebate under s. 33 of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The counsel are agreed that in view of our Courts judgment in the case of CIT vs . Emco Electro Pvt. Ltd. : [1979]118ITR864(Bom) , and the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs . Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. : [1987]166ITR66(SC) , the question is to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered.No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sanjiv Trading Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT134Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. SKM/1017/89, dated 16-5-1989. The aforesaid orders have been passed confirming the penalties of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on each of the appellants by the Assistant Collector for not filing the RT 12 Returns from July to October, 1986. The Assistant Collector has observed that though these units were licenced units and they are fully aware of the requirement of filing the RT 12 Returns, earlier for the period April to June, 1986 also, they did not file the RT 12 Returns and again they have committed the same breach. Hence penalties of Rs. 1,000/- have been imposed on each of the aforesaid appellants. Though their representative for the appellant sought for adjournment, considering the nature of the case, the request for adjournment was not agreed and after hearing Shri Arya, the ld. SDR who indicated that the appellants are manufacturers of S.O.Dyes. They did not file the declara...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahab Vs. the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Malegaon and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR582; 1992CriLJ326
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges an order of externment dated January 17, 1990 passed against him under Section 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malegaon, Sub-Division, Malegaon (first respondent) which was confirmed by the State of Maharashtra (second respondent) on June 2, 1990 in an appeal. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malegaon had issued a show cause notice dated June 8, 1989 to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed from the areas of Nasik, Dhule, Jalgaon and Ahmednagar districts for the period of two years as he had committed eight offences under Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act from the year 1984 and no witnesses were willing to come forward to depose against him as there was danger to the lives and properties. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malegaon and submitted his written statement along with two ch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »