Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)1ITD122(Mum.)
1. In this departmental appeal, the only issue is the quantum of income which is to be included in the assessment under section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The assessee is an individual. He is a director in Fouress Engg. (I) (P.) Ltd., His wife is employed by this company on a salary of Rs. 21,500. she had also received fees for attending board meeting amounting to Rs. 1,350. The ITO included these two amounts under section 64(1). Apart from the income of the wife, the dividends arising to the shares held by the minor children of the assessee were also included under section 64. We may mention that there is no dispute that section 64 would apply in this case. However, the assessee had claimed that deduction should be allowed in respect of the contribution made to the provident fund by the assessee's wife from her salary income as well as the insurance premium paid by her on the policy taken by her under section 80C of the Act and only the balance was to be included....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)59ITD350(Mum.)
1. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that late S.R. Chary was a salaried employee. He was paid an amount of Rs. 2,15,000 to enable him to under-go a surgical operation in the United States of America. The Assessing Officer treated it as perquisite under section 17(2)(iv) of the IT Act and added it to the income of the assessee. In the process he relied on the circular of CBDT dated 31-12-1985. When assessee went in appeal the learned counsel for the assessee brought to the notice of the learned CIT (Appeals) the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Dr. R.C.Panjawani [IT Appeal No. 6822 (Bom.) of 1992 dated 14-6-1993]. The learned CIT (Appeals), however, observed as under : "I have gone through the said judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, Bombay and differ from it respectfully." Thereafter he gave some reasons and held that it was taxable as perquisite. He also referred to the CBDT's Circular No. 445 [wrongly typed in the order of CIT ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)53
ORDERM. K. CHATURVEDI, J. M. :These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A), XVIII, Mumbai, and pertain to the asst. yr. 1984-85.2. The assessee is a company existing under the laws of Denmark. It has its principal place of office at Nymollevej 55, DK-2800 Lungby, Denmark. By an agreement dt. 15th Feb., 1981 (paper book pages 20 to 180), it entered into a contract with Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RCF') a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Administrative Building, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074, India. The agreement was for rendering consultancy services in relation to the design engineering, erection and commission of a chemical fertiliser complex. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the following three payments received for rendering the services by the assessee, were in the nature of the management charges :(1) Supervision of construction including erection and installation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)59ITD313(Mum.)
1. These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A), XVIII, Mumbai, and pertain to the asst. yr. 1984-85.2. The assessee is a company existing under the laws of Denmark. It has its principal place of office at Nymollevej 55, DK-2800 Lungby, Denmark. By an agreement dt. 15th Feb., 1981 (paper book pages 20 to 180), it entered into a contract with Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "RCF") a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at Administrative Building, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074, India. The agreement was for rendering consultancy services in relation to the design engineering, erection and commission of a chemical fertiliser complex. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the following three payments received for rendering the services by the assessee, were in the nature of the management charges :(1) Supervision of construction including erection andinstallation of the plant Rs. 99,97,462...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)LC187Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 52,179/- by way of reversal of Modvat credit and Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty.2. Shri Kohli, the ld. consultant, appearing for the applicants, submits that they have taken the credit on the Gate Passes issued by M/s. Resha Wires Pvt. Ltd. and those Gate Passes were duly authenticated and they have made the payment to the said party and if the said party has [fraudulently] used the old Gate Passes, the Department should realise the duty amount from the said party. In his submission therefore, there is no justifiable ground in raising the demand against the applicants. He also refers to the Order No.379/93/WRB, dated 10-3-1993, where, according to him, in an identical situation, unconditional stay has been granted. He also referred to the decision of the Larger Bench in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 279.3. After hearing both the sides, it appears that the allegation and the cause for raising demand calls for d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT725Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This application is for seeking intervention in the proposal of the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers to charge interest on the Modvat credit held to be inadmissible vide the order which is under challenge in the main appeal.2. This Bench vide its interim order dated 19-3-1996 has granted stay against penalty imposed on the applicants. The applicants had, in pursuance of the order-in-original had voluntarily reversed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 53,97,,799/-. Since this was done by them voluntarily, no mention thereto was made in the said stay order passed by this Bench. Subsequently, on 10-4-1996, the jurisdictional Asstt.Commissioner has directed the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,92,812/- being interest for the period 25-8-1995 to 1-12-1995 on the specific observation that the Tribunal in their order dated 19-3-1996 had granted stay against recovery of penalty but not against recovery of interest under Rule 57U(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. On hear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the appellants appeal on merits,they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,33,700/- towards the denial of Modvat credit.2. The Appelants claim Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on the transformer which has been denied.3. Mr. M.H. Patil the ld. Advocate submits that transformer fall within the category of machines, equipment etc. as specified in Rule 57Q, and notwithstanding the same, on and from 16-3-1995, the transformers have been specifically mentioned for availment of Modvat credit on capital goods. The credit is denied only because, the same was availed of in November, 1994 when inclusion of the transformer in Rule 57Q was not there. He also submits that the appellants are prepared to furnish a bank guarantee and they may not be asked to make any cash deposit.4. After hearing Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. JDR, it is clear that issue as to whether the transformers which: the appellant claim to be of specific qualilty, required for use in furnace for melting, could fall withi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT267Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal from the revenue is directed against the captioned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In this order the Collector (Appeals) had upheld the ruling given by the Asstt. Collector that the two products viz. Calcium Citrate (neutralised fermentation broth) and culture media were not excisable goods.2. Before us, the revenue was represented by Shri Singh, the ld. JDR and Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld. Advocate for the respondents.3. Before going into the issue of excisability of these two products, it would be necessary to outline the process of manufacture of Citric acid from molasses by inoculum (culture) media during the manufacture of these two products. The process, in short, is as follow :- "The molasses is collected from sugar factories and brought to the factory through molasses tanker and stored in molasses storage tank. From molasses tanks, molasses is pumped and brought to the plant near fermenters then the molasses solution is prepared by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT658Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 31,48,491.20 towards duty and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards penalty.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld. advocate, for the applicants, submits that the show cause notice is issued on 30-4-1993 covering the period 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1992. They have already brought to the notice of the Department that the subject logos and the names were used by them and hence there is no suppression of material facts. On merits, he submits that the brand name and the logo used are registered in the name of an Indian firm . Rotex Manufacturers & Engineers Ltd., Dombivli and the Registrar of Trade Marks, have, on due verification, registered the same. There is evidence on record to show that the Dombivli firm is an SSI unit and no objection about the use of the foreign name is raised against them. The approach of the authority below about the use of the trade mark and brand name of the foreign firm, does not appear to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT72Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the appellants appeal on merits they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,97,078/- towards the duty and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the penalty.2. Mr. Willingdon, the ld. Advocate, submits that the applicants are the subsidiary company of M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. at Kalapat, and by virtue thereof, the goods purchased by M/s. Berger Paints were being delivered directly at the applicant's factory for the purpose of manufacture of paints. Some of the goods were received under the invoices, which were in the name of M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. with the address of the said firm shown as the one of the present applicant, and under the bona fide belief they took the Modvat credit on those documents. When the objection was raised as to the availability of those documents for the purpose of taking Modvat credit, M/s. Berger Paints Ltd. issued separate invoices and affidavits were also obtained from the suppliers to indicate that the goods covered under those invoices were directly de...
Tag this Judgment!