Mumbai Court March 1996 Judgments

M. R. Muchhala Vs. Fourth Income Tax Officer. (Also

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross - appeals arise out of the order of the CIT(A), dt. 27th Feb., 1989 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1984-85. After hearing the learned representative of the parties, the appeals are disposed of as under.2. The first issue relates to the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 18,09,893 out of the consideration received on sale of the proprietary concern of the assessee. The assessee, an individual, was carrying out proprietary business under the name and style of M/s M. M. P. International. The business was that of a consulting and indenting agent and import and sale of machinery spare parts. Another business activity of the assessee was shareholding and salary income from a company, M/s Muchhala Consultants Pvt. Ltd., of which he was one of the directors. The proprietary business was started during the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1982-83. On 23rd March, 1984, the assessee had agreed to sell the said proprietary business w.e.f. 26th March, 1984, as a going ...

income Tax Officer Vs. Hind Filders [P.] Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1982)1ITD323(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1977-78.2. The appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the assessment in the case was one under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), and quashing the same on the ground that the assessment was made beyond the period of limitation.3. The assessee is a private limited company. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1977-78, the accounting period for which ended 31-12-1976. The return was due to be filed on or before 30-6-1977. The assessee filed a return on 24-6-1977 showing an income of Rs. 5,71,750.The time limit prescribed by section 153 for completing the assessment was to expire on 31-3-1980. The ITO proposed to make a variation in the income of the assessee by an amount exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, thus attracting section 144B to the proceedings. A draft of the proposed assessment order was, therefore, finalised on 28-3-1980 and was dispatched by ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Pudamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT595Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This Reference application has been moved by the Revenue in respect of this Bench Order No. 1794-95/95-WRB, dated 13-10-1995. In the said order passed by this Bench, it was held that refund sanctioned to the appellants under Rule 173L was in order and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals). There is no dispute before me that all the conditions prescribed in Rule 173L proviso have been complied with.However, it is pleaded that in this case, the defective security paper was not put to processing, when the replacement materials were cleared to the security press. Hence, it is pleaded by the learned Departmental Representative, that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 173L cannot be said to have been complied with. She pleads that under Rule 173L, refund is limited to the duty paid on re-processed goods and when replacement has been done before re-processing, refund cannot be granted. In any case, refund is liable to be rejected on this ground and if they file another refund claim, after repr...

Visveswaraya Industrial Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)59ITD156(Mum.)

1. The assessee, a registered as a company under section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Cos'. Act) has filed the appeals fort the two assessment years 1989-90 & 1990-91 and the cross objection against the appeal filed for the assessment year 1989-90 by the revenue department. The appeals involve common issues and because, the cross objection is against the cross appeal filed by the revenue, these appeals have been group together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The common controversy in these appeals of the assessee are in regard to its claim as charitable institution covered by the provisions of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that its income are therefore exempt from tax under section 11 of the Act. The revenue department had refused to grant the exemption because, the assessee diverted its attention to the activities of construction of buildings known as Trade Centre, Commerce Cen...

Param Anand Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)59ITD29(Mum.)

1. All these appeals involve common issues and hence they are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. As can be gathered from the name of the assessee, the assessee-company was engaged in construction work. There was a search at the premises of the assessee on 11th May, 1987, and the Revenue claims that it had discovered incriminating material during the course of the search. Consequently assessments for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1984-85 were reopened under s. 147/148 of the IT Act. The assessee had gone in appeal against those orders before the learned CIT(A) and, inter alia, had challenged the reopening of the assessments. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment orders but did not deal with the issue of validity of reopening the assessments. The assessee did not take this as a separate ground before us for those assessment years but filed an application for allowing permission to raise an additional ground to the effect that the learned CIT(A) erred in...

Satyawan Narayan Dewoolkar Vs. National Textile Corporation, Bombay an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR7; [1996(73)FLR1570]; (1998)IIILLJ887Bom; 1996(2)MhLj244

ChandraShekhara Das, J. 1. 1. The petitioner was a workman in Mumbai Textile Mill which has been taken over by the National Textile Corporation, the first Respondent. He challenges the order of the Industrial Court at Bombay passed in Appeal (IC) No. 107 of 1989 dated April 15, 1993. Though the Industrial Court has found that he is entitled for the relief of reinstatement and back wages, it refused the relief to the petitioner on the ground that his application filed before the Labour Court at Bombay, being Application (BIR) No. 344 of 1986 was premature. Earlier Labour Court at Bombay had dismissed his application. 2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of this case are thus :- (a) The petitioner while working as a workman under the Mumbai Textile Mills participated in a general strike of the cotton textile mills which commenced on 18th January, 1982. It was a strike which affected the entire Textile Mills in the region of Bombay. The strike was declared illegal. Eventhough the s...

Dayaram @ Jayaram Parshuram Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR727

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 28th September, 1995, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 95 of 1994 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 302 I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case in brief runs as under:---The deceased Ram Dagdu Jadhav was the husband of P.W. 1 Nirmala Ram Jadhav and the brother of P.W. 4 Manohar Dagdu Jadhav. On 21-8-1993 at about 7-45 p.m. while the deceased and his brother Manohar were returning after a stroll and had reached near Saibaba Mandir, the brother of the deceased inadvertently pushed the appellant. Thereupon the appellant started abusing them. The deceased asked the appellant not to abuse them. Thereupon the appellant took out a knife and inflicted two blows with the same on the deceased. In the meantime P.W. 1 Nirmala Ram Jadhav, the wife of the deceased, whose house was situated ...

Param Anand Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mumbai)21

ORDERJ. K. VERMA, A. M. :All these appeals involve common issues and hence they are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. As can be gathered from the name of the assessee, the assessee-company was engaged in construction work. There was a search at the premises of the assessee on 11th May, 1987, and the Revenue claims that it had discovered incriminating material during the course of the search. Consequently assessments for the asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1984-85 were reopened under s. 147/148 of the IT Act. The assessee had gone in appeal against those orders before the learned CIT(A) and, inter alia, had challenged the reopening of the assessments. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment orders but did not deal with the issue of validity of reopening the assessments. The assessee did not take this as a separate ground before us for those assessment years but filed an application for allowing permission to raise an additional ground to the effect that the le...

Collector of Customs Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT371Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue in this appeal by the Department is the classification of goods described as 'washer extractor' imported by the respondent. It claimed refund of duty paid on these goods on the ground that they were classifiable under sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 of the Tariff whereas they have been claimed under sub-heading (1). This claim was accepted by the Collector's (Appeals), who set aside the Assistant Collector's order holding that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading (1) of the Heading 84.40.3. The only reason that the Collector (Appeals) has cited, is that the unit price of the commodity tends to indicate that it may have industrial application. Classification cannot be decided only on the basis of price, particularly in the absence of comparable prices of domestic and industrial machines of the same type. Further, the contention of the departmental representative that the sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 reads "Domestic washing machines and laundry and dry cleanin...

Abs Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT631Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. M-1212/BD-791/85, dated 25-4-1986, the Registry issued a notice to the appellants for not furnishing a copy of the order-in-original. During the hearing, the copy of the order-in-original was produced by the learned Consultant Shri R. Shukla. He pleaded that the appeal may be disposed of because the point in dispute has since been clarified by the Board, vide CBEC Circular No. 81/88-CX. 6, dated 6-12-1988. Hence, with the consent of both sides, the appeal was taken up for disposal. The appelents claimed benefit under Notification No. 203/82, dated 27-11-1982. Under this notification, incentive credit is being given for excess production in respect of the goods cleared from the factory for home consumption during the period from 1-3-1982 to 28-2-1983, In excess of the Base period clearances. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the incentive credit in respect of the excess over the base period clearances. As per the notification, credit of ...