Mumbai Court May 1997 Judgments

Zenith Magnetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT96Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of magnetic tapes. On examination of the goods, and subsequent enquiry, the department was of the view that the goods were in the nature of rejects. Notice was therefore issued to the importer proposing confiscation of the goods as imported unauthorisedly, on the view that the goods being disposal goods, could not be imported in terms of the Open General Licence (OGL). The importer resisted the notice, contending that the goods were not disposal goods. The Additional Collector did not accept this contention, and held that the goods were disposal goods and hence not entitled clearance under OGL. Hence this appeal.2. Advocate for the appellant contends that the goods are new and therefore, even if they are defective, sub-standard or rejects, they are not disposal goods. He relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Husein Mohammedally Master v. Union of India and Ors. - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 936 (Bom.) and subsequent decision of this Tribu...

Asaram S/O Patilba Gorde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR663

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mrs. Kulkarni for the Petitioner, Mr. Babhulgaonkar, learned A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Nagargoje, for Respondent No. 4. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.2. The election programme of Respondent No. 4, Sangh, was declared on 23rd April, 1997 and as per the said programme, last date for filing nomination papers was 12.5.1997, date of scrutiny was 14.5.1997 and the publication of the final list of the contesting candidate was 23.5.1997. In column No. six it was also mentioned if appeal was filed list of valid contesting candidate was to be published on 22.5.1997. The present petitioner submitted his nomination form for election to the Managing Committee of Respondent No. 4-Sangh, on 12.5.1997 and it came to be rejected suo motu by the Returning Officer on 16.5.1997, on the ground that the petitioner didn't fulfil the requirement of byelaw No. 19.1.5 of the byelaws of Respondent No. 4-Sangh. The said order came to be ...

Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT375Tri(Mum.)bai

1. It is contended that, out of the demand of duty of Rs. 54.49 lacs (approximately) Rs. 45,000/- is not disputed, and Rs. 1.00 lac has already been paid, thus leaving the amount not required to be deposited is Rs. 53.04 lacs. A penalty of Rs. 50.00 lacs under Rule 173Q has also been imposed.2. Advocate for the applicant says that the demand arises out of the Commissioner's finding that the applicant could not account for spares of power driven pump or compressors etc manufactured by it. He contends that applicant has not in fact manufactured these goods. It is stated that, right from the commencement of the factory, the applicant was erroneously following a practice of entering the spares (such as washers, bolts, nuts, gascets), which, if purchased from manufacturers and those suppliers of these goods, in the RG1 register alongwith the goods manufactured by it, and cleared the spares on payment of duty. In June, 1988 it came to know that this was incorrect. It therefore stopped follo...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Mayurika S. Poddar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 22nd March, 1990. The first ground taken in this appeal is as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction of interest of Rs. 7,06,824 paid by the assessee abroad on the loan incurred for the purpose of Indian shares and debentures though tax on the same has not been deducted ignoring the specific provisions of s. 58(1)(a)(ii) and s. 21 in this regard." 2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative as well as the learned assessee's counsel. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the concessional rate of income-tax provided for non-residents has been prescribed after considering all the deductions allowable to such persons, i.e., in case of non-residents, expenses on account of interest, etc., are not allowable. He has further submitted that the having not deducted tax at source from the pa...

Uni Abex Alloy Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(72)LC667Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dt. 5.4.1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported a consignment of "Incoloy 800 H Bar Stock".These were classified under CTH 7221.00 as stainless steel products.The appellants subsequently claimed the classification under CTH 7505.12 claiming that the products were actually Nickel Alloy. This claim was rejected by the lower authorities.2.1. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that even though the ferrous element is predominant in this alloy the goods can still be considered as Nickel Alloy as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. as .3. The Learned DR strongly contested this argument submitting that this decision was rendered in the context of old Tariff.5. The composition of goods as indicated in the Bill of Entry reveals that whereas ferrous ranges from 43.12 to 45.92%, Nickel percentage ranges from 33.44 to 31.1%. The Chapt...

Patel Cotton Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)64ITD273(Mum.)

1. The dispute in these two appeals of the assessee for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 is relating to the validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the CIT, Mumbai City-III, Mumbai. The related dispute is on account of deduction under section 80HHC.3. Relevant facts in this case are that assessee had claimed deduction under section 80HHC at Rs. 15,353 and Rs. 72,054 for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 respectively. The Assessing Officer allowed the deduction as claimed by the assessee. The CIT on examination of the records was of the view that the assessee has been given excessive deduction as the same was to be computed proportionately with reference to the total turn-over vis-a-vis the export turn-over. According to the calculation made by the CIT, deduction allowable to the assessee was Rs. 9,088 and Rs. 24,437 for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 respectively. He, accordingly, issued a notice to the assessee inviting objections a...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. G.S. BhatiA. (Also G.S. Bhatia V.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Department, relating to same assessee for the asst. yr. 1986-87 are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 5633/B/90 : In this appeal the Revenue has objected to deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,16,307 by the CIT(A) which was made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that at the time of search the Revenue has not seized jewellery which was tallied with the details of jewellery already disclosed by the assessee and his family members in their respective returns of wealth and it was only the jewellery which did not tally with those returns was seized. As the assessee had failed to explain the source of investment in this jewellery the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition on this account. The assessee's counsel, on the other hand, has strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A) wherein...

Udeyraja Goliya (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)64ITD21(Mum.)

1. Assessee-HUF had filed both these appeals against separate orders of the CIT (Appeals) dated 23rd February 1994 and 10th March, 1992 for the same assessment year 1988-89. ITA 4448 is against the order under section 143(3) read with section 250 of the IT Act and ITA 4073 is against the order under section 143(3)/144A of the Act. As the grounds of appeal involved are common, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. At the time of hearing these appeals, Sri Y. P. Trivedi learned representative for the assessee, requested for withdrawal of the appeal in ITA No. 4073/Bom/92. This Appeal is treated as withdrawn and stands dismissed for want of prosecution.3. The only ground challenged by the assessee in ITA No. 4448/Bom./94 is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,00,000.4. According to the assessee, there was only a discussion between the broker and the assessee which took place regarding the purchase of land but actually no tr...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G. S. BhatiA. (Also G. S. Bha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Mumbai)91

ORDERI. S. VERMA, J.M. :These two appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Department, relating to same assessee for the asst. yr. 1986-87 are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 5633/B/90 : In this appeal the Revenue has objected to deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,16,307 by the CIT(A) which was made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment in jewellery. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that at the time of search the Revenue has not seized jewellery which was tallied with the details of jewellery already disclosed by the assessee and his family members in their respective returns of wealth and it was only the jewellery which did not tally with those returns was seized. As the assessee had failed to explain the source of investment in this jewellery the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition on this account. The assessees counsel, on the other hand, has strongly relied on the order of...

Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 23rd March, 1990, wherein various grounds have been taken which we proceed to decide one by one.2. Ground No. 1 : Addition made on account of gross profit sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel has submitted that the lower authorities had made the addition in the trading account by rejecting the gross profit rate declared without pointing any specific mistake in the assessee's accounts. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.3. We have considered the rival submissions. Under the IT Act assessment of a person can be framed under s. 143(3) or under s. 144 or under s. 147 or under s. 145 r/w s. 144. An assessment under s. 143(3) is to be completed on the basis of materials available with the AO whereas an assessment under s. 144 is an ex parte assessment but the AO has power to estimate the assessee's income to the best of knowled...