Mumbai Court September 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.
Universal Luggage Mfg.Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC306Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs. 21,33,948/- towards duty vide Order in Appeal No. A-67/93 dated 29.4.1993.2. Shri C.S. Lodha, the learned advocate pleads that all the three show cause notices are within time. However, on merits they have got an excellent case. They are claiming deduction only in respect of expenses incurred at the depots. These expenses are post clearance and therefore not includible in the assessable value. They also claim deduction towards interest on consumables. He referred to the decisions of the Special Bench reported in Guljag Chemicals & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise and Union of India v.Duphar Interfran Ltd. 1987 (27) ELT 599 : 1984 ECR 1443 (SC) : ECR C 709 (SC). He therefore pleads that the demands in respect of these post clearance expenses are not sustainable. Shri Lodha also contends that the firm has incurred a loss of Rs. 6.2 crores as against the net worth of Rs. 4.37 crores.3. S...
Arts and Commerce College, Pen, District Raigad Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR309; 1994CriLJ172
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Arts and Science College, Pen, District Raigad, has filed this petition under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. In a Writ petition no. 3123 of 1991 filed by the said College, a Division Bench of this Court as far back as on 21-8-1991 directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders under S. 43(4) of the Maharashtra Act No. 22 of 1974 not later than 30th November, 1991. Time limit expired, months rolled by but no order was passed and hence reminders dated 9-9-1991, 9-10-1991 and 27-2-1992 were issued, the last communication being a legal notice. All this evoked no response. 3. This contempt petition for disobedience of the order of High Court was filed on 8th July, 1992. The learned Asst. Govt. Pleader took time, even during pending of the petition no action was taken and hence rule was issued on 10th August, 1992. The matter was adjourned from time to time for nearly one year and the only indulgence shown to the Court was filing of an affidavit date...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.M. Virwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Bom)239; [1994]207ITR225(Bom)
ORDER--Order passed by ITO on the basis of directions of IAC under s. 144B.Held :Under s. 143, the power of assessment is vested in the ITO. An order passed by the ITO under s. 143(3), continues to be an order under that section though passed after following the mandatory procedure laid down in s. 144B. Therefore, an order passed by the ITO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144B, of the Act is an order made by the ITO which is subject to revisional jurisdiction of the CIT under s. 263. Sec. 144B, though inserted as an independent section, in truth and substance, is in the nature of proviso to s. 143(3). Conclusion :Order of ITO under directions of AAC under s. 144B is actually an order passed by ITO and not IAC, therefore, it is revisable by the CIT. Application :Not to current assessment years.Citation :Income Tax Act 1961 s.263Income Tax Act 1961 s.144B...
Vishwanath R. Raut and Co. Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR255
A.V. Savant, J.1. The petitioners are a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 carrying on the business at Custom House Agents under a licence issued by the Collector of Customs in accordance with the provisions of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. They claim to be operating in this field for the last about 40 years without a blemish and during the past 5 years preceeding the filing of the petition, they claim to have annually handled the business involving customs duty of approximately Rs.20 crores each. The first respondent is the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and the 2nd respondent is the Docks Manager of the Bombay Port Trust.2. By the present petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the letter dated 29th February, 1988 - Exhibit 'E' to the petition, under which the 12 Dock Entry Permits issued to the petitioners have been suspended until the final disposal of the criminal case instituted against the petitioners, in the following facts. ...
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT23(Bom); [1994]206ITR495(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the following item of expenditure : 'Nature of expenditure AmountRs.1. Freight charges 3,68,7082. Export inspection charges 8,7833. Brokerage 5624. Insurance 5,2475. Bank charges 12,7076. Clearing charges 41,250.'2. The admitted position is that all the expenses mentioned in the above-referred question were incurred by the assessee in India, though in connection with carriage of the goods to their destination outside India. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the controversy in this case is fully covered by the decision of this court in M. H. Daryani v. CIT :...
Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR85(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this court for its opinion : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the expenses amounting to Rs. 12,507, Rs. 85,777 and Rs. 10,077 incurred by the assessee for various social welfare measures were not allowable as revenue expenditure for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the amount of Rs. 1,55,000 paid by the assessee-company to the erstwhile occupant of the land acquired from the Bombay Municipal Corporation in exchange of the assessee's land was not allowable as revenue expenditure (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had...
Amul Dye Chem Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT112Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. V.2(34)235/91/3967 (SKD)/444/DN-VII/91/BII) dated 27-9-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. V-Adj(ADC)4-220/89/3532 dated 8-5-1991 of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. VII, Bombay II, confirming the demand of Rs. 9979.78 from the appellants.2. When the matter was called out, the Registry brought to my notice a letter from the appellants dated 20-8-1993 declaring that they were dispensing with the right of personal hearing and that the matter be decided on merits.3. Heard Shri Ravinder Jain, the Ld JDR, for the Respondent Collector, who has referred to the statement of account and has submitted that the demand raised is in conformity with the statutory provisions.4. Going through the records, it appears that the appellants were availing of Modvat Credit facility. However, they opted out of the same with effect from 1-4-1989. As per the provisions of Rule 57C o...
Bombay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Bom)128; [1994]206ITR562(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. This is a cross-reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee as well as the Revenue : At the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding an addition to the total income of a sum of Rs. 6,54,777 representing the loss of stock-in-trade due to embezzlement by the employee discovered long after the end of the previous year, i.e., some time in the year 1976, notwithstanding that such loss already stood reflected in the books of account for the previous year ended December 31, 1974 ?' 2. At the instance of the Revenue : '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not the provisions of section 40A(5) of the said Act, apply in the case of an employee-director 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shivanand Electronics
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Bom)94; [1994]209ITR63(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for the opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the non-compliance with condition of filing of audit report is fatal to given relief to the assessee under section 80J(6A) ?' 2. The facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy raised in the above question, are as under : The assessee is a registered partnership firm. The business of the firm is of 'manufacture of electronics and electrical equipment, etc.' In its return for the assessment year 1976-77, it claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,272 under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). A similar deduction of an amount of Rs. 9,096 was claimed during the assessment year 1977-78. This claim of the assessee was allowed by the Income-tax Officer...
Oswal Fertilizers Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR433(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The following five questions are referred by the Tribunal to this Court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the deed of partnership dt. 21st November, 1970, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the minors had been made full fledged partners under the deed of partnership dt. 21st November, 1970 3. Whether, the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the contention of the Revenue that the AAC had erred in directing the ITO to register the firm under s. 185 of the IT Act, 1961 and to treat the assessee's status as a registered firm for the asst. yr. 1972-73 4. Whether, the Tribunal should have upheld the order of the AAC directing the registration of the firm under the IT Act, 1961; 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »