Mumbai Court November 1993 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.
Nav Ketan International Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Bom)468; [1994]209ITR976(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The assessee, who is the applicant before us, is a private limited company, carrying on the business of production of motion pictures. The company was incorporated on April 10, 1963. Under Article 122 of the articles of association, the first two directors of the company are Mr. Dev Anand and Mrs. Mona Dev Anand. Under the said article 122, Mr. Dev Anand is a permanent director of the assessee-company and he holds office until his death or resignation or until he otherwise ceases to hold the office as director. Under article 125(1), each director shall be paid out of the funds of the company by way of remuneration for his services, a sum not exceeding Rs. 250 for each meeting of the board or committee of the board, attended by him as a director. Clause 125(2) provides that in addition to the remuneration payable as above, the directors may allow and pay to any director who is not a bona fide resident of the place where a meeting of the board of the company is...
Shonan Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT717Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the appellants appeal on merits against Order-in-Appeal No. 23/93, dt. 24-2-1993 the appellants are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 63,875.48. There is also a delay in filing the present appeal and the application for condonation is filed.2. Shri P.R. Joshi, the learned consultant appearing for the appellants has submitted that though the order in appeal was received by them on 27-2-1993, they were waiting for communication from the Asstt.Collector pursuant, to the order passed by Collector (Appeals) who had directed some verification to be done at the Asstt. Collector level and before they could receive the communication, they received the order of detention and therefore they moved the High Court of Bombay on 9th August, 1991 but the High Court rejected the writ petitions holding that another remedy was available vide Order dated 30-8-1993 and hence the appellants have approached the Tribunal by the present appeal on 28-10-1993. The learned consultant submitted that ...
Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT873Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though only stay petition was listed for hearing today, at the request of the appellants and consent from the ld. SDR, the entire appeal is taken up for hearing by granting waiver against pre-deposit.2. The appeal is directed against the Order in Appeal No. A-182/93, dt.13-9-1993 confirming the order in original No. Dy.Collr./Vil/KPS/010/4/93, dt. 22-2-1993 imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants.3. The appellants availed of Modvat credit on differential duty paid by the suppliers on the strength of certificate issued by the Range Superintendent for certifying payment of additional duty on the gate passes mentioned in the certificate. During verification it was found that one of the gate passes in .respect of which the differential duty amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- plus Rs. 24,000/- was paid, did not relate to the appellants but was for another unit of the appellants at Gandhinagar, and availment of the Modvat credit was not available to the appellants. On noti...
Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1993
Reported in: [1994]51ITD339(Mum)
ORDERPer T. V. K. Natarajachandran, AM - This is an appeal by the assessee which is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XIV, Bombay, dated 25-1-1993, herein the assessee has impugned the order on several grounds.2. The first and foremost ground is that the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making adjustment to the book profits under section 115J of the a sum of Rs. 641.44 lakhs being the differential depreciation arising out of retrospective change in the method of charging depreciation. He has also erred in agreeing and observing that the change of method of depreciation was not bona fide, but was a design to avoid lawful payment of tax.3. Assessment is a widely held public limited company and is engaged in manufacturing activities of tyres in the brand name of Modistone. The assessment year involved is 1989-90 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-89. It appears that the previous year consis...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Corning Glass Works Usa (Corning
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD368(Mum.)
1. The appeal by the department and the cross objection by the assessee are being consolidated, for the sake of convenience, since one of the issues is common.2. The department's appeal will be taken up first. Ground No. 1 is reproduced below: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the capital gain in US Dollars and then convert into Indian Rupees as per Rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the proviso to Section 48 of the Income-tax Act which is in accordance with his direction has been inserted only from 1-4-1990 and hence is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.3. The assessee is a non-resident company. It was providing technical know-how to the Indian company, M/s. Borosil Glass Works Ltd. The sources of income were, therefore, receipt of technical know-how fees from the Indian Company and also dividen...
Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD479(Mum.)
1. Both these appeals are directed against the common order dated 30-3-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-V, Bombay (Shri F.J. Bahadur) assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Since both the appeals raise common issues and are directed against the common order of the Commissioner, they are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The assessee undertakes civil construction contracts from reputed organisations. The construction contracts as also various projects undertaken to be completed take several years for completion. The work also continues at various sites on account of various works undertaken.For example in assessment year 1983-84, the work started on behalf of Crompton Greaves Ambad, Nasik continued up to assessment year 1989-90.So is the case in respect of Thane work undertaken on behalf of Precision Fasteners Ltd. For the purpose of accounts, the year adopted is financial year and for the purpose of books of account the assessee adopted p...
Diamond Trust Investment (P.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)50ITD123(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the CIT (Appeals), confirming a levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 1,95,930.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an investment company and its office premises were searched under Section 132 of the Act, on 5-9-1985. The search revealed, inter alia, cash of Rs. 11,001 which was seized. The amount was added to the assessee's total income in the assessment order under Section 69A of the Act. Further, there was a cash credit of Rs. 3 lac for receiving loans from B.J. Properties & Constructions and this was also added to the assessee's total income under Section 68 of the Act. The additions were confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer gave opportunity to the assessee in continuation with penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, along with the assessment order. It was submitted that mere disallowance could not be the basis fo...
Diamond Trust Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]51ITD123(Mum)
ORDERSinha, AM - This is an appeal by the assessee against an order of the CIT (Appeals), confirming a levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 1,95,930.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is an investment company and its office premises were searched under section 132 of the Act, on 5-9-1985. The search revealed, inter alia, cash of Rs. 11,001 which was seized. The amount was added to the assessees total income in the assessment order under section 69A of the Act. Further, there was a cash credit of Rs. 3 lacs for receiving loans from B. J. Properties & Constructions and this was also added to the assessees total income under section 68 of the Act. The additions were confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer gave opportunity to the assessee in continuation with penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, along with the assessment order. It was submitted that mere disallowance could not be t...
Colgate Palmolive (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1993
Reported in: (1995)LC335Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. A-57/93 [V-2A(MV)/9/93/598] dated 19-4-1993 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of toilet soap. They have filed MOD VAT declaration, which inter alia, contain the description "perfumes" as one of the inputs and its classification has been indicated under Chapter Heading 3303.00 of the Tariff. There is no dispute that this declaration was filed with the proper officer namely the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 16-7-1990. However, they noticed that some of the Gate Passes, under which perfumes were received, were classified under Chapter Heading 3302.90 and an audit objection was also taken to the effect that these inputs received under 3302.90 [were] not eligible for MODVAT Credit in the absence of declaration, they filed a supplementary declaration on 15-4-1991 giving the description "perfume" with Tariff classification 3302.90. Howev...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Maize Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT818Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal from the Revenue against the order in appeal No.V-2 (15C) 3052/81, dated 18-12-1985, allowing the appeal of the respondents on the ground of time-bar. Since the Revenue seems to be aggrieved by this order, they have come in appeal.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondents brought Tapioca Starch declared as input under Rule 56A for the manufacture of modified starch and Dextrose. The dispute relates to the credit of Rs. 36,258 taken during the period 6-1-1978 to 29-4-1978 under a show cause notice issued on 9-4-1980. The Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents without going into the merits, mainly on the ground of time-bar. The allegation is that the input was received from M/s.Chaudhary Sago and Jaggery suppliers, Salem who is a wholesaler and they used to purchase starch received under different gate passes from different licencees, some of whom also cleared starch within the exemption limit. Hence, the starch received from such sourc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »