Mumbai Court April 1991 Judgments
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Formac Engineering Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC95Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.SKM-92/B-II-360, dated 19-12-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, allowing the appeal of the Respondents. The department has brought the appeal against the aforesaid order of the Collector (Appeals).2. The undisputed facts which were revealed by the Ld. JDR, Shri A.V.Naik, are the following .The Respondents filed a MODVAT declaration in respect of the inputs Serro Control-Amplifier on 29-6-1987 under dated acknowledgement from the Department. However, certain inputs had been received by the Respondents under G.P. No. 658 dt. 23-5-1987 and No.685 dt. 31-5-1987. Though they have received the same in the month of May 87, the credit was taken only on 30-6-1987, and utilised on the following day. The Collector (Appeals) has held that credit cannot be denied and hence the Department has come in appeal.3. Shri Naik, pleaded that the stock of inputs should be lying and the case could be considere...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Kothari Family Trust
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD160(Mum.)
1. and 2. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 3. In assessec's appeals for the three years, the common dispute is with regard to the treatment of rental income of the assesscc received on letting the godowns constructed and remained unsold. The asscssee is engaged in the business of construction of godowns and selling them.The assessee claimed that the rent received was assessable as income from house property whereas the revenue's case is that it was business income.4. The assessee's claim is that it had transferred godowns from stock-in-trade worth Rs. 14,15,230 in the assessment year 1983-84 and Rs. 34,96,500 in the assessment year 1984-85 to investment account at the average sale price. By this process, this ceased to be stock-in-trade and their letting was not in the course of or connected with the business and, therefore, the rental was assessable under Section 22 and not under Section 28. The ITO did not accept the claim by observing that the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemaux Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR909(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. In this departmental reference made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessee's assessment year 1962-63, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following questions of law for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that secret commission, although disallowed in assessment proceedings for want of proof, has to be duly considered while making an order under section 104 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee has distributed dividends in excess of the one prescribed under section 104 of the Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order made under section 104 of the Act was valid ?' 2. The central issue in this reference pertains to whether additional income-tax is payable under section 104 in respect of undistributed dividend att...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indabrator Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Bom)98; [1992]196ITR842(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's surtax assessment for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to surtax under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh representing the value of shares allotted to the two foreign collaborators in consideration of supply of technical know-how was includible in the computation of capital under rule 1 of the Second Schedule to Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the assessee had entered into an agreement dated April 15, 1964, with two foreign companies, namely, the Wheelabrator Corporation, Indiana, U. S. A. and Tilghman's Ltd., Cheshire, England, under whi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Duphar Interfran Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR28(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 2. Assessment year 1971-72 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,128 being part of the gratuity reserve should not be reduced in the computation of capital base under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rule 4 cannot be invoked for reducing the capital base, where relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was allowed and consequently directing that the capital computed in accordance with rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, should not be diminished by Rs. 5,04,391 f...
Tag this Judgment!National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR227(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. There are cross references. They relate to the assessee's assessment for the year 1974-75. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court, the following two questions of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. By the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the dividend of Rs. 1,21,66,645 declared by the company after the first day of the deducted from the balance of the general reserve as on the first day of the relevant previous year for computing 'statutory deduction' under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 3. By the Commissioner : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company's debenture redemption reserve, and gratuity reserve, constituted reserves and were to be included in the computation of the assessee company's capital for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 4. Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhtar Jafarbhai Maulana Hasanali and Others, Etc. Vs. AmiruddIn and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1986
ORDER1. In these proceedings, the petitioners complain that the respondents by publication appeared on 9-3-1991 in daily 'Nav Bharat' at Jabalpur have shown a flagrant disregard of the order of this Court dated 6-2-1991 and thereby committed a contempt. On 25-3-1991 notices to the respondents were issued. They were made returnable within two weeks. The matter was finally heard on 22nd, 23rd and 24th April, 1991. 2. In 1967 the petitioners filed a suit purported to be under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act for setting aside the finding recorded by the Charity Commissioner under Section 6 of the said Act and claiming declaration that the Public Trust has been created by virtue of a deed marked as Exh. 554 in 1894. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have proved that as per the directions of Maulana Malak Saheb, a Public Trust was created in 1894. However, the plaintiffs are not the members and followers of the sect founded by Maulana Malak Saheb and as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmed A. Fazalbhoy (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR663(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is entitled to be termed as an 'industrial company' as defined by section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973 ?' 2. The assessee is a company whose main business is running a cold storage plant and also selling spare parts of refrigerators on a small scale. The relevant accounting year is calendar year 1972 and the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee claimed during the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer that it was an 'industrial company' as defined by section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973, and, as such, it was entitled to be charged at a lower rate of tax. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax officer without any discussion on this point. The Appellate A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Bom)36; [1992]195ITR778(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this Departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that sum of Rs. 8,64,323 which was the difference between the proceeds of sale of 11,884 bags of sugar sold by the assessee-company at the rate of Rs. 209.60 a quintal, which was the selling price fixed by the Allahabad High Court, and the proceeds of sale at the rate of Rs. 136.87 a quintal fixed by the Central Government, which amount was actually realised by it, did not constitute its income and hence was not liable to be included in its total income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have enhanced the assessee's total inco...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Chandrakant M. Khatau and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR849(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for opinion under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount Rs. 2,27,197 being the value of the annuity of the deceased adopted under the provision of the Wealth-tax Act should be taken as the property passing under section 7 of the Estate Duty Act and not the sum of Rs. 4,12,260 adopted on the basis of section 40 of the Estate Duty Act ' 2. It is common ground that the deceased, Smt. Jayabai Laxmidas Khatau, died on December 20, 1963. She had, at the time of her death, one-fourth share in the income from the trust settled by her husband in the year 1948. The principal value of the trust property was, admittedly, Rs. 16,49,040. There was no dispute that her life interest in the trust property ceased on death with in the meaning of section 7 of the Es...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »