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.
Hi Lingos Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT392Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. CIU/ INF /20/92/S/10-8/93 dated 5-1-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. In this order, the Collector has ordered confiscation of six containers consisting of total 5100 bags declared to be Sodium Tripoly Phosphate (hereinafter referred to as S.T.P.P.) but actually found to be Poly Vinyl Alcohol, under Section 111(d), (f) & (g) of the Customs Act, but allowing redemption for re-export to the appellants (who have shipped the consignment from Keelung, Taiwan) on payment of a fine of Rs. one crore. The Collector has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the appellants. 2(1) The appellants are reported to be a trading concern in Taiwan. They have shipped six containers each declared to contain 102 M.T. of S.T.P.P. from Keelung, under Bill of lading dated 21-9-1992 issued by N.Y.K. Lines. The notified party in India as per the B/L is declared to be M/s. U.K. Paint Industries, Delhi. As per the export manifest filed ...
Dr. Beck and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)117; [1994]206ITR311(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 the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the following items could be allowed : 1. Rs. 5,04,521 being the amount paid to Dr. Beck and Co., A. G. Germany, factually for the grant of permission to the assessee to sell its goods to countries other than the countries in which it was required to sell in the agreement with the German company 2. Rs. 76,604 being expenditure on export inspection charges 3. Rs. 1,05,703 being the export expenses incurred on loading and unloading charges ?' 2. As regards the claim for weighted deduction in respect of expenditure referred to in item No. 1 of the above question, we find that a similar controversy came to be considered by this court in the assessee's own case in respect of an earlier assessment year in Dr. Beck an...
Filtrona India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR545(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), made at the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,28,000 out of Rs. 2,00,000 paid by Filtrona India Ltd. to Killick Nixon Ltd., under section 40(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee, Messrs. Filtrona India Ltd., is a limited company and belongs to the Killick Nixon Group of companies. This reference pertains to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76. In the relevant previous years, the assessee paid a remuneration of Rs. 2,00,000 per year to Messrs. Killick Nixon Ltd., for working as its secretaries. Messrs. Killick Nixon Ltd. held more than 20% of the equity shares of the assessee-company during those previous years, and, as such, it was a pers...
Anilkumar Narharrao Satarkar and ors. Vs. Shrinivas Alias Digambar Ach ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR106
S.S. Dani, J.1. These two First Appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment.2. Anilkumar, Arunkumar, and Shashikant are three sons of one Narharrao (defendant No. 8 in First Appeal No. 3 1986), and are real brothers inter se. Ramchandra and Achut are also real brothers and Achut is father of defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in First Appeal No. 3 of 1986. Ramchandra and Achut hail from Paithan and were having some ancestral properties. Ramchandra left Paithan and settled in Aurangabad and started his career as a Compounder but, then moved to Pimpri village where he practised in medicine while his brother Achut continued to stay at Paithan. Ramchandra married Jankabai and Sitabai but, still had no issue. Sitabai started residing with Ramchandra at Aurangabad. Sitabai purchased a house No. 5-22- 65/5m (City Survey No. 5499) at Paithangate, Aurangabad in 1951. Anilkumar, Arunkumar and Shashikant are related to Sitabai from her maternal side. Sitabai, on 28th Jaunary, 1969 execut...
Sudha Narayan Gokhale Vs. Narayan Shankar Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC152
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 17, 1991, passed by the learned Family Court, Pune, granting a decree for judicial separation in favour of the respondent on the ground of cruelty on an application filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce against the appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.2. The respondent initially married one Kunda Chafekar and of that marriage two sons namely, Sandip and Samir were born. After she died on August 1, 1980, the respondent married the appellant on May 16, 1981 at Pune. At the time of the second marriage, the respondent's two sons by the earlier marriage were aged about 14 and 7 years.3. According to the respondent, the appellant behaved properly with him and his two sons for a few days after marriage. Thereafter she started putting pressure upon him to live separately after sending his two sons to a boarding house. As the respond...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)163
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income, profits and gain of the assessee from the contract business should be assessed on accrual basis in a year when a particular contract is completed or in each accounting year on the basis of work-in-progress (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the income, profits and gains of the assessee could properly be deduced from the method of accounting adopted by the assessee in showing the profit in a year when the contract was completed (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provision for gratuity has to be allowed as a deduction in computing business income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1971-72 ?' 2. So far as question Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the controversy the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. S. Dempo and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1993
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Bom)203
DR. B. P. SARAF, J. :By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income, profits and gain of the assessee from the contract business should be assessed on accrual basis in a year when a particular contract is completed or in each accounting year on the basis of work-in-progress ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the income, profits and gains of the assessee could properly be deduced from the method of accounting adopted by the assessee in showing the profit in a year when the contract was completed ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provision for gratuity has to be allowed as a deduction in computing business income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1971-72 ?'2. So far as question Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the controversy therei...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Himson Textile Engg. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Ravinder Jain, the Id. JDR, sought for an adjournment. Since the respondent's consultant is from out-station and no question of law is framed, I do not find any reason to grant an adjournment.2. This application is purported to be a Reference Application moved by the Collector of Central Excise, Surat, against the Order No.455/93-WRB, dated 19-3-1993 passed by this Bench. Though the proforma for filing the Reference Application has been adopted by the Collector, in Column 8, he referred to Annexure 'B', which reads "Grounds of Appeal" and no question has been framed. On this ground itself, the Reference Application merits rejection straightaway. It is needless for me to mention that there cannot be any appeal against the order of the Tribunal, since it is final. However, provision is made for agitating any point of law, where either side feels that the Tribunal has erred on a point of law. In this case, much ado is made about a demand for Rs. 215.00 and a penalty of Rs. 100/-....
P.B. Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT79Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the stay application and the appeal involve in consideration of the same issue, which fall within a short compass and hence the appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. V-Adj. (Ch.30)15-43/92/3426, dated 2-6-1993 of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.3. Facts of the case are that the appellants filed two classification lists No. 23 and 26 dated 5-8-1991 and 12-8-1991 respectively claiming benefit of Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988. The undisputed fact is that these classification lists are yet to be approved and a Show Cause Notice has been issued to the appellants only on 14-6-1993.4. In other words, the classification lists are yet to be approved and in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Samrat International [AIR 1991 SC 369] the assessments are still provisional. However, during the pendency of the approval of the classification list, they have cleared these medicines availing of the benefit of the aforesa...
Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: (1993)(68)ELT895Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Ravinder Jain, the Ld. JDR, pleads for adjournment that a reference has been made to the Board, since the decision to deny MODVAT Credit was based on the Board's clarification supported by the chemical examiner's opinion. This request however could not be granted, since a number of adjournments have already been granted and the position is otherwise clear. The advocate is from outstation, who has been appearing every time.2. The Reference Application has been moved by the Collector in respect of the order of this Bench No. 1898/99/92/WRB dated 2-11-1992. The issue involved in the appeal was whether Phosphoric Acid added to the sugarcane juice for purposes of clarification could be construed to be an input eligible for MODVAT benefit.3. The following facts are not disputed. Phosphoric acid is added only where the phosphatic content in the natural cane juice was found to be deficient so that to attain the required degree of clarity, the phosphoric acid is added to the cane juice...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »