Mumbai Court November 1994 Judgments
Collector of Customs Vs. Tata Engg. and Locomotive Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)(56)LC715Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the common order in appeal dated 25.11.1975 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay in the following circumstances: The respondents herein M/s. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Company Limited imported 14 consignments of castings which were assessed to countervailing duty under Item 26-AA of the Central Excise Tariff. The importers filed separate applications for refund of duty on the ground that the goods in question were not steel castings and therefore, not liable to countervailing duty under the above mentioned Tariff item. Even though the refund claims which are the subject matters of the appeals before us (as well as other refund claims) were filed beyond a period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim on merits in two cases namely, in respect of Bill of Entry No. 1515 dated 10.9.1971 for which the relevant refund claim was filed on 9.11.1972, and in respect of Bill of Entry No. 3695 date...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dandeli Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR1(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunwala, 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 opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J and section 80HH of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. On March 30, 1973, the Dandeli Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., the assessee-company, was incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and started manufacturing and other commercial activities on June 20, 1973. By a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court on December 14, 1973, with effect from October 31, 1973, another company by name Electro Metallurgical Works (Pvt.) Ltd. (for short, referred to as 'the amalgamating company') was amalgamated with Dandeli Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (for short, referred to as 'the amalgamat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopalkrishna M. Singre and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)304; [1995]214ITR443(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, Pune ('Tribunal'), to this for opinion: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees were entitled to deduction under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of their share of profit from the interest on fixed deposits with banking companies and interest on Government securities earned by the firm in which the assessees are partners?' 2. The assessees in this reference are (1) Vishnu M. Singre, (2) Gopalkrishna M. Singre and (3) Shrikrishna M. Singre and all of them are assessed in the status of 'individual'. The assessment year involved is 1973-74, the corresponding previous year being the year ended on November 5, 1972. All of them are partners in a registered firm, namely, Bengal C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jhaveri Bros. and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)47; [1995]214ITR374(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, Bombay Bench 'A', Bombay, 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 law in holding that the provisions of section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable in respect of the payments of interest aggregating to Rs. 1,92,668 made to the current accounts of the directors and their family members and friends during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The books of account of the assessee carried current accounts of the directors, other shareholders and their family members and friends. The assessee credited interest to these accounts. For the assessment year concerned, such interest amounted to Rs. 1,92,668. The Income-tax Officer was ...
Tag this Judgment!Pentagon Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR92(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, made at the instance of the applicant-assessee, the 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 law in taking the view that the provisions of s. 201(1A) for levying interest are mandatory and the ITO is not required to take into consideration the reasonable cause for non-payment of taxes deducted under s. 192 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment years concerned are 1973-74 to 1979-80. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years under consideration, the assessee delayed payment of tax into the Government Treasury, which the assessee had collected from the salary paid to its employees. The ITO, therefore, proceeded to calculate interest under s. 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, referred to as 'the Act'), from the date on which the salaries ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chetna Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai
1. There is a delay of 11 days in filing the reference application by the Revenue in respect of this Bench order No. 1000-02/WRB, dated 6-7-1992. After hearing both the sides, we condone the delay and took up the Ref. application for disposal. "Whether the declaration filed by the respondents with the Range Supdt. could be treated as a valid declaration for purposes of availing MODVAT Credit under Rule 57G of Central Excises Rules, 1944".3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the facts discussed in para 6 of this Bench order are not disputed. In this case, since the original mod vat declaration, which filed by the respondents was not in proper format, giving correct classification, the respondents were directed by the Asstt Collector to have discussion with the Supdt. to finalise the declaration. Thereafter, the revised declaration, after suitable modification was given to the Supdt. This Bench took note of the earlier Trade Notice issued by the Department allowing the Supdt.to...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Electric Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,32.044.25 towards duty vide order in appeal No.PCJ-210/SRT/94 (F. No. V-2(81)224/SRT/94, dated 7-10-1994. The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit on moly wire used as Mandrel for making tungsten filament. This has been held to be an appliance following the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s. Apar Ltd. 2. Shri W. Christian, the ld. advocate, appearing for the applicants, refers to the Board's clarification contained in F. No. 267/63/91-CD.8, dated 30-12-1992, wherein the Board have clarified that moly wire is to be considered as a consumable and not as a tool or appliance, since it is capable of only one time use and in that view Modvat credit is held to be admissible as a consumable. Shri Christian pleads that in view of the clarification of the Boards, the authorities are presently allowing Modvat benefit.3. After hearing both the sides, though we held the issue in favour of the R...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Antoneta Cicilia Fernandes Vs. Smt. Rita Maria Fernandes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR10
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, dated 30th August, 1994, in Special Execution Application No. 2/91/A whereby the learned Judge has rejected, on remand made by this Court in First Appeal No. 40/94 on 20th June, 1994, the appellant's application for setting aside the attachment and sale made of certain properties purportedly belonging to the appellant and her husband in execution application filed by the respondent No. 1 decree-holder against the respondents No. 2 and 3, the judgment-debtors.2. It is not necessary to recapitulate all the facts in this case and suffice is to say that the respondent No. 1 upon securing a decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, against respondent No. 3's firm, consequent upon an arbitration award which was made the rule of the Court, sought to execute the same against the assets of one of its partners, the husband of the appellant. As a result two flats an...
Tag this Judgment!Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT619Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order in Appeal No.M-1324/AHD-514/85 [F. No. V. 2(18(III)1591/ 84/8889], dated 30-12-1985, rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. Shri Dave, the Id. advocate, appearing for the appellants, does not dispute the following factual position : The appellants have paid duty on a quantity of 2530 kgs. under G.P. No. 37, dated 14-5-1983. This payment is reported to be by mistake on an excess quantity of 1670.5 kg. They did not point out this excess payment made by mistake in the RT 12 return filed in the month of May, 1983. The officer also did not notice it. Assessment was finalised. However, in the subsequent month viz. June, 1983, they seem to have realised the mistake and pointed out it in the RT.12 returns showing that there was an excess payment and requested for allowing credit in the PLA to the extent of Rs. 18,793, which however, was not acted upon by the Supdt. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim on 17-12-1983 which came to be rejected by t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fashion Prints Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Bom)272; [1996]217ITR456(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J. 1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activities of the assessee in dyeing, printing and processing grey cloth produced by others amounted to manufacture or production of textiles as specified under item No. 21 of the List in the Ninth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to entitle it to additional depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Act?' 2. The assessee is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessment years involved are 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessee was engaged in the business of dyeing, printing and processing textile goods and for that purpose, the assessee used to purchase grey cloth and sell the same on its own account after dyeing, printing and proces...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »