Mumbai Court May 1993 Judgments
Tata Unisys Ltd. (Formerly Tata Burroughs Ltd.) Vs. Deputy Commissione ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1993
Reported in: (1993)47TTJ(Mumbai)8
ORDERN. R. PRABHU, A. M. :The first ground of appeal in this case is that the Commissioner (A) was in error in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer allowing a deduction under S. 35B against income exempt under S. 80-O of the IT Act. We have heard the parties to the dispute. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order had computed the deduction admissible under S. 80-O by deducting from the gross receipt depreciation, loss of corporate office and deduction under S. 35B amounting to Rs. 5,05,054. As against the gross receipt of Rs. 1,70,54,437 the deduction computed by him was of a sum of Rs. 1,49,00,279. We may not fault the Assessing Officer for following the procedure adopted by him to compute the admissible deduction under the provisions of S. 80-O. This is in view of the clear provisions of S. 80AB, which read as under :'80AB. Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section (except S. 80M) included in this Chapter under the heading C-Deductions in r...
Tag this Judgment!Koparan Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD436(Mum.)
1. In this application, the assessee has challenged several orders of the Tribunal. But during the course of hearing, the learned advocate for the assessee has confined his argument only to the order passed by the learned 3rd Member insofar as it relates to question No. 1, which was referred to him for opinion.2. The above captioned appeal had come up for hearing before Bombay Bench 'C of the Tribunal consisting of Shri G.K. Israni, Judicial Member and Shri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Accountant Member. Since there was a difference of opinion between these members on certain points, the Bench had made a reference to the Hon'ble President under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act and the President had nominated Shri U.T.Shah, the then Sr. Vice-President of the Tribunal for hearing on the points of difference. After hearing the parties, Shri Shah has expressed his opinion on 7-10-1992. Shri Shah has been elevated as a judge of the High Court and as such the application moved by the assessee h...
Tag this Judgment!Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD534(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 2-5-1988, pertaining to the assessment year 1983-84.2. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer by treating the appellant as an agent of M/s. Nedlloyd Lines B.V., a non-resident company. An appeal was preferred before the CIT (Appeals) and it was pleaded that no opportunity was provided as required under Section 163(2) of the IT Act, 1961 and as such, the ITO has committed an error in treating the appellant as an agent for the non-resident company and therefore, the assessment framed is bad in law and invalid. The contention of the appellant did not find favour with the CIT (Appeals).He has noted that a statement of advance-tax in Form No. 28A was filed by the appellant in his capacity as an agent of the non-resident company. He has also noted that an estimate of advance-tax was also filed by the appellant in the status of agent of the non-resident company and the tax was accor...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Administrator of the Estate of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD232(Mum.)
1. These fifteen appeals relating to three assessees are being consolidated for the sake of convenience, since common issues are involved. Ten appeals out of the above have been filed by the Department and five have been filed by the assessee.2. The main contention in the Departmental appeals relates to the question whether surplus from sale of land should be treated as income from long-term capital gains or as income from business. The basic facts forming the background of the issue are that late Shri F.E.Dinshaw was a partner in a firm of solicitors and was also Financial Adviser to the House of Gwalior. He purchased large tracts of land at Malad and Borivli about 70 years ago, having area of about 2500 acres.He died in 1936 leaving a son Shri E.F. Dinshaw and a daughter Smt.Bachoobai Woronzow, both of whom were non-residents in India and also non-citizens for a long time. They became joint owners of the land left by their father and did not carry out any physical division. Shri E.F...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Western (India) Texturizers Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1993
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Mumbai)400
ORDERG. K. ISRANI, J. M. :These two cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 17th Oct., 1988, for the asst. yr. 1984-85.Departmental appeal2. The ground raised in this appeal reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,85,109 being disallowance under s. 43B of the IT Act.'The learned CIT(A), after verification, has directed that the two amounts of Rs. 2,99,265 and Rs. 1,32,060 have been duly paid within the statutory time prescribed i.e. on 13th Jan., 1983, as they related to the last quarterly payment of Maharashtra Sales-tax. In view of this factual position he has directed that the addition of Rs. 3,85,109 be deleted. We find that the view of the matter taken by the learned CIT(A) is correct and proper and is in consonance with the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessory Stores vs . Union of India & Ors. : [1991]189ITR70(Patn...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of Watumull Foundation Vs. Assistant Director of Inspection
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)48ITD239(Mum.)
1. These seven appeals by the assessee rotate round the identical issues. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly the facts: - The assessee is a public charitable trust.During the year ending 31-3-1972 the assessee received donations towards corpus amounting to Rs. 6,95,811. Out of this, the assessee had advanced a loan of Rs. 6,50,000 to Fleet Fastners (Pvt.) Ltd. against equitable mortgage of immovable property. Loan was given during that very year, on interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The rate of interest was raised to 15 per cent per annum from 1-4-1981. The paid-up capital of that company was Rs. 4 lakhs. Two of the trustees of the trust were also directors of the Fleet Fastners (Pvt.) Ltd. 3. In these cases, initial assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 11 of the IT Act, (hereinafter called the Act) determining the income at nil as declared by the assessee. These assessments were se...
Tag this Judgment!Kritkumar M. Muchhala Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD363(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A), for the assessment year 1988-89, confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the failure of the assessee to obtain an audit report, under Section 44AB of the Act.2. The Legislature realised that the accounts maintained by companies are audited under the Companies Act, 1956; those maintained by Co-operative Societies are audited under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912; but there is no obligation on other categories of assessees to get their accounts audited. It also felt that a proper audit for tax purposes would ensure that the books of account and other records are properly maintained and that they faithfully reflect the income of the tax-payer and claims for deductions are correctly made by him. Such audit, it was felt, would also help in checking fraudulent practices and facilitate the administration of tax laws by a proper presentation of the accounts before the tax aut...
Tag this Judgment!Ginners and Pressers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD185(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1989-90 confirming the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(c) at Rs. 17,300.2. The assessee is a limited company. It paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,000 to a contractor, M/s. Parag Enterprises. As per the provisions of Section 194C of the Act the assessee was required to deduct tax of Rs. 1,449 at source at the time of payment or credit given to the account and pay the same to the Government. Section 206 provides for filing a return of such deduction and payment of tax at source. Rule 37 of the Income-tax Rules provides that such return is to be filed in Form No. 26C and submit the same within the time stated therein, which, in the present case was 31-5-1989. The assessee deducted the tax at source on 15-3-1989, of Rs. 504 and on 12-5-1989 of Rs. 945 and paid the same to the Government on 15-3-1989 and 24-5-1989 respectively, i e. before 31-5-1989, the day on which the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay and Liquidator of Jai Hind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom74
ORDERSujata Manohar, J.1. The appellant is the Official Liquidator of Jai Hind Estate & Housing Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation). He had taken out Company Application No. 161 of 1981 against 16 respondents underS. 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for a declaration that respondents Nos. 1 to 16 being Directors and/or officers and/or Auditors of the above Company had misapplied and/ or become liable and/ or accountable for the money or property of the Company and/or were guilty of misfeasance and/or malfeasance and/or non-feasance and/or breach of trust in relation to the said company in respect of various amounts as set out in the prayers to that Company Application. This Company application was taken out on 15th June, 1981.2. Eight years thereafter, the Official Liquidator took out Company Application No. 75 of 1988 by which the Official Liquidator sought to bring on record the heirs of deceased respondents Nos. 1 and 16 in Company Application No. 161 of 1981. This Company Application No. 75...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›