Mumbai Court June 1991 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.
Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC207Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order-in-original bearing No.S/10-121/84H dated 28-6-1984 ordering confiscation of a consignment of components of vertical machining centre with standard accessories valued at Rs. 8,78,734/- but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-.2. At the outset, on an enquiry by us, the 1d. advocate Shri Chinoy conceded that the order does not touch the rate of duty and hence, the refund of duty mentioned in Col. 8 of their appeal memorandum is not relevant. Their appeal is only against the order of confiscation and redemption fine imposed.3. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal are as below: The appellants being the DGTD unit, have obtained an approval for the Phase Manufacturing Programme for the aforesaid machine. In the first phase, the machine in CKD condition was allowed to be imported and they have got the list of the components constituting the machine in CKD condition duly attested by the DGTD and hence cla...
H.T. Narsinghani Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD510(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the assessee is contesting the action of the I.T.authorities in not granting exemption Under Section 53 of the Act.2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1988-89 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ended on 31-3-1988.3. The assessee, along with his brother had purchased two adjacent flats of unequal size from M/s. Sippy and Sons for Rs. 10.50 lakhs. The assessee had contributed Rs. 8.50 lakhs for flat No. 31 admeasuring 1171 sq.ft. whereas his brother contributed Rs. 2 lakhs for flat No.32. Even though both the flats were purchased by the two brothers in their individual names, both the flats were jointly used by them.During the relevant previous year, the assessee transferred one room admeasuring 198 sq.ft. to his brother for Rs. 2,10,000. The capital gains after deducting the proportionate cost price from the sale proceeds amounted to Rs. 66,510. The assessee claimed exemption Under Section 53 of the Act in respect of the capital...
K. Patel and Co. Vs. Thirteenth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD579(Mum.)
(i) re-opening of the assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act; and (ii) addition of Rs. 1,05,000 being loan of Rs. 1 lakh taken from M/s. Modern Savings and Trading Unit Pvt. Ltd. (M.S.T.U.) and interest of Rs. 5,000 paid thereon.2. The assessee is a firm. The assessment year is 1976-77 and the relevant previous year is S.Y. 2031 ended on 3-11-1975.3. On 30-6-1976, the assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,70,731.On 1-11-1976, the ITO framed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, on a total income of Rs. 1,79,500.4. It may be mentioned that the assessee had taken loan from various parties, including M.S.T.U. of Rs. 1 lakh. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed confirmation letters of the creditors including M.S.T.U. giving their complete address, GIR Numbers, etc. All the loans taken by the assessee were by Account Payee Cheques only. The assessee had repaid the loans as well as the interest thereon to the cre...
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD596(Mum.)
1. Under the Surtax Act, these three appeals by the assessee involve one common point. For the sake of facility, therefore, they are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. On the inter-corporate dividend, assessee was allowed deduction under Section 0M and the point involved is that in terms of Clause (viii) of Rule 1 of First Schedule, of the Surtax Act, the gross dividend income should be excluded or only that part which is included in the total income for income-tax purposes. It may be noted that in terms of Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 60% of the gross dividend income is allowed as deduction and the balance 40% only is included in the total income. The corresponding figures for these three years are furnished by the assessee as follows: Departmental authorities have excluded only the 40% of the dividend income, which is included in the total income, while assessee's claim is mat the whole of the gross dividend should be so treated as covered by Rule 1 (viii) of the First Sch...
Astra-idl Limited Vs. Ttk Pharma Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom35; 1992(2)BomCR298
ORDER1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit against the Defendant for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by itself, its servants, agents, distributors and representatives from infringing the Plaintiff's trade mark 'Betaloc' registered under No. 326230 dated June 16, 1977 in Class 5 in respect of Pharmaceutical preparation by use of the impugned trade mark 'Betalong' or any other trade mark deceptively similar to Plaintiff's said registered trade mark 'Bctaloc' in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in pharmaceutical preparations bearing the trade mark 'Betalong' or any other mark deceptively simitar to Plaintiffs trade mark 'Betaloc' so as to pass off the Defendants goods as and for the goods of the Plaintiff or in any other manner whatsoever and for damages, costs and other reliefs as prayed for in the Plaint filed. The Plaintiff has taken out the present Notice of Motion for interim injunction in te...
Colridge Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: 1991LC183(Bombay); 1992(57)ELT387(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners are a Company registered under the Companies Act, and inter alia, manufacture diverse kinds of packaging materials, including tubes popularly known as 'Aluminium Collapsible and Rigid Tubes' at their factory situated at Thane. The aluminium tubes manufactured by the petitioners are liable for payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 27(e) of the Central Excise Tariff. A dispute arose between the petitioners and the Excise Authorities in respect of assessable value of the extruded tubes. The petitioners claimed that it was not permissible to take into account costs of post-extrusion operations while determining the assessable value of the aluminium extruded tubes. To post-manufacturing operations related to lacquering, coating and printing of the aluminium tubes, and also the costs of the plastic caps fitted on the tubes. The Department on the other hand claimed that post-extrusion operations are part of the manufacturing activities and the costs should ...
Suresh Vithoo Nare Vs. the Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Company Limited ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR316; [1991(63)FLR359]; (1994)IIILLJ717Bom
H.H.Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner-workman was employed by the first respondent-company as the temporary workman with effect from June 4, 1979. His services were' terminated with effect from October 31, 1981 for a certain misconduct. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint on November 3, 1981 before the Government Labour Officer, Kalyan. The first respondent-company was called by the Government Labour Officer on November 13, 1981 with necessary information, and documents regarding the termination of services of the petitioner. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kalyan requesting him to intervene in the matter. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour received the said complaint on November 3, 1981 and sent a letter dated December 5, 1981 to the first respondent-company. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour issued a notice regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of services to the ...
AmIn Chand Payare Lal Vs. C.T.A. Pillay, Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)LC182(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners arc challenging legality of concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three authorities below while exercising powers under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The facts giving rise to passing of the impugned orders arc as follows.2. The petitioners secured import licence dated August 8, 1961 for import of Hot Rolled Steel Sheets and the value of the licence was about Rs. 44 lakhs. The petitioners booked an order dated November 16, 1961 for import of rolled steel sheets c.i.f. value of Rs. 55,261/-. The import licence specifically provided that the import would be valid provided the imported goods cross the Hungarian border on or before February 28, 1962, but after August 8, 1961. The goods imported by the petitioners reached Indian territory on June 11, 1963. The Customs Authorities thereupon found that t...
Transport Corporation of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. R.M. Gandhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR210; (1999)IIILLJ312Bom
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. By this writ petition under the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with the provision of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have impugned the issue of process against them by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, in the criminal complaint filed against them for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Scheme', respectively).2. The first petitioner is a limited company, which owns a textile mill known as Mukesh Textile Mills covered by the provisions of the Act. Petitioners 2 to 8 and 10 to 13 are the Directors of the first petitioner, while petitioner No. 9 is said to be an ex-Director. Petitioner No. 14 is the President of the Textile Division of the first petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Regional Director appointed under the A...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Standard Alkali
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid four appeals from the Department involve eonsideration of the common issue - namely eligibility of Modvat Credit on graphite anodes and titanium metal anodes used in the electrolysis of brine solution for obtaining caustic soda lye. The common issue involved is whether, they come under the excluded category of item figuring in the explanation to Rule 57A. Hence both the sides preferred to advance common arguments. They were heard together and all the Appeals are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. E. 479/90 is directed against the order in appeal passed by Collector (Appeals) bearing No. GSM. 284/90 B. III dated 20-9-1989 allowing the appeal of the respondents and permitting availment of modvat credit in respect of Titanium metal anodes. The other three appeals listed at S. Nos. 2 to 4 above have been filed by Collector of Central Excise, Baroda against the common order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. 208/90 dated 16-4-1990, under which he allowe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »