Mumbai Court November 1994 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.
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. New Standard Engg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT576Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals involve in consideration of the same issue but on different set of facts. They have been disposed of by the Collector (Appeals), by a single Order-in-Appeal No. HN-1459/60/B.II/379-380/85, dated 2-4-1986. There were two adjudication orders passed by the Assistant Collector - one is dated 11-5-1983 and another dated 29-6-1983. In the case of the order passed by the Asstt. Collector on 11-5-1983, the Collector reviewed the order and issued direction to file an appeal under Section 35E(3) of the CESA in the month of June 1984 (date not indicated before us). In the case of appeal 210/86 the adjudication order passed by the Asstt. Collector on 29-6-1983, the review of the said order was done by the Collector with direction to file an appeal on 11/84. The Collector (Appeals) refused to entertain the appeals filed by the Department before him on the ground that the review orders passed by the Collector under Section 35E(3) of the Act are barred by virtue of amendment to S...
Airfreight Limited Vs. K. Kothawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR109; 1995CriLJ287
1. This Revision Application under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicant-original complainant against the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay dated 5th November, 1992, discharging the Respondent-accused under S. 245(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the offence punishable under S. 630 of the Companies Act, read with S. 406 of IPC. 2. That the petitioner-complainant filed a criminal complaint being Criminal Case No. 5/S of 1988 in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, against the respondent-accused on the accusation that the Respondent-accused was in the employment of the complainant-company. The complainant is the General Manager of M/s. Airfreight Private Limited being registered company under the Companies Act. The complainant had taken one flat on leave and licence basis from one Mrs. Sarla Kirpalani under the licence agreement. The flat known a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fancy Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR29(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 at the instance of the Revenue to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company did not hold a lease of a building for the reason that it held a lease of terrace of a building 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the case of the assessee-company was covered by section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The controversy in this case related to the entitlement of the assessee to the balancing allowance of Rs. 57,134 in terms of section 32(1)(iii) in respect of the first floor property which was constructed by the assessee on a leased terrace at the cost of Rs. 1,04,012 which was discarded during the year under consideration. 3. The answer to the abo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sterling Foods (Goa)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Bom)30; [1995]213ITR851(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 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, is the Appellate Tribunal right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the activity of the assessee is a manufacturing process and is entitled for exemption under section 80HH ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership-firm. It derives its income from sale of prawns. In its assessment for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80HH of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), from its income derived from sale of prawns on the ground that the activity processing of prawns before putting them for sale amounted to manufacture and production of articles within the meaning of the said section. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the In...
Fariyas Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)363; [1995]217ITR390(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 for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether the assessee-company is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis that it had installed new machinery or plant in an industrial undertaking for the purpose of the business of manufacture or production of an article or thing?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company running a 4-star hotel in Colaba, Bombay, called 'Fariyas Hotel'. In its assessment for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 27,600 under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on plant and machinery used by it in its hotel. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground, inter alia, that the running of a hotel did not amount to 'manufacture or production o...
Shakti Raj Films Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Bom)243; [1995]213ITR20(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 ('the Tribunal') has referred the following question to us for opinion : 'Whether the assessee was entitled to relief allowed by the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes of October 4, 1969, in respect of its assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 made on March 31, 1975, when, by another circular dated December 5, 1974, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had modified the instructions contained in its earlier circular of October 4, 1969 ?' 2. Though the question is couched in very wide terms, we propose to confine our decision to the controversy raised in the said question in the light of the facts of the present case, which are briefly set out below : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of distribution of films. In is assessment for the assessment year 1972-73, it claimed deduction for the wh...
Uniflex Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT737Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. S/49/156/94 - 452/94-BCH, dated 15-6-1994 rejecting the appeal of the appellants and confirming the order of the Asstt. Collector refusing to amend the import manifest to substitute the name of the appellants as the consignee in the place of the original consignee figuring in the manifest in the name of M/s. Marvel Impex Pvt. Ltd. This order has been passed by the Asstt. Collector by refusing to permit amendment under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act. The relevant findings of the Asstt.Collector for refusing to permit the amendment of the manifest are reproduced below: "I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made by the party. The issue involved in this case is the amendment in the name of consignee. Section 30(3) of Customs Act provides that if the proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any way incorrect or incomplete and there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri and Smt. Jose Filipe Alvares
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR1027(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 at the instance of the Revenue, to this court for the opinion : 'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the contention of the assessee that the income-tax assessment made on the disrupted body of individuals as a result of death of member is unauthorised and therefore invalid?' 2. The assessees in this case are Shri and Smt. Jose Filipe Alvares of Margao. Both of them are husband and wife governed by the system of community of property (known under the Portuguese Civil Code of 1860 as 'Communian Dos Bens') in force in the State of Goa and in the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. The controversy in this reference pertains to the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 the corresponding accounting year being the financial year e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tyresoles Concessionaries Pvt. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Bom)98; [1995]213ITR660(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf J. 1. By this reference at the instance of the Revenue made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', Bombay, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the unabsorbed development rebate of Rs. 6,54,000 carried forward in the case of the amalgamating company, Bombay Barges and Ships Pvt. Ltd., in the assessment for 1975-76 should be set off against the profits of the assessee, the amalgamated company for the same assessment year, in spite of the provisions of section 33(2) (ii) read with section 33(3)(b) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that relief under section 80J to which the amalgamating company, Bombay Barges and Ships Pvt. Ltd., was entitled in respect of ships which became the property of the ...
Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR805(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 questions to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the scheme of Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act by reason of the declaration made by the applicant under section 14(1) of the Ordinance 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under section 147(b) when the Income-tax Officer had purported to reopen the assessment specifically under section 147(a) 3. Whether, on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »