Mumbai Court November 1998 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajaram Bandekar and Sons (Shwping) (P) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Bom)52

DR. BY. SARAF, J.By this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenses incurred on stevedoring charges and port dues for loading and unloading iron ore to export it are to be allowed as weighted deduction under s. 35B ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payment of ex gratia amounting to Rs. 1,58,828 made to the under IT Act (sic) and entitled for deduction for the asst. yr. 1977-78 ?2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that controversy in this question stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. vs . CIT : [1994]206ITR495(Bom) in favour of the Revenue. In view of the above, question No. ...

Lalchand H. Kumavat and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(80)LC757Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeals are filed by the parties against the impugned order captioned above, praying for setting aside the same and also the personal penalty imposed thereunder.1.2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of the pre-recorded information on 28.6.1987 at about 10.00 hrs, the Central Excise Officers, Mumbai-II Collectorate, intercepted a truck no. MTV 2168 on Agra Road, near Petrol Pump near ST bus stand in Bhiwandi in Thane District. It was found loaded with gunny wrapped packages, 91 in numbers, found to contain one carton each, with 12 cones with 100% polyester texturised yarn, made in Korea, wounded on each cone. The occupants in truck could not produce any documents covering the legal import acquisition or the transportation of the same. It was seized under the panchnama under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India and liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, so also the Truck no. MTV 2168 used for the transportation of the same. The driver Shri A...

Haria Exports Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT272Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellant imported a consignment of pearl headed pins made of steel for which it claimed benefit of Notification 86/86. The Custom House on examination of goods, found that the goods were made of steel other than stainless steel and therefore the benefit of the notification which exempted specific goods made out of iron and steel would not be available. The Additional Collector of Customs, thereafter passed orders impugned in the appeal, denying the benefit of notification, confiscating the goods under Clause(d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act with an option to the appellant of fine and imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 111.2. We have heard both sides. The Departmental Representative adopts the reasoning in the impugned order.3. No reason is forthcoming in the impugned order as to confiscation of the goods under Clause(d) of Section 111. Charges proposed to the importer, as seen from the second para of the order, were merely that goods have been imported in a contrave...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. AustIn Engineering Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee could have different assessable values for the products to be sold in different areas of the country.2. The Collector (Appeals) held that since difference in price was on commercial considerations, there could be different assessable values.This is not questioned in the appeal. He had noted that the Bombay High Court judgment in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing v. U.O.I. - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 172, which held to the contrary was set aside by the Supreme Court which remanded the matter to the High Court to consider the questions in the light of some documents produced before the Court.Once the judgment has been set aside it is no longer valid as evident.On the other hand the Collector's (Appeals) view is fully supported by the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Gora Mai Hari Ram Ltd. v.CCE -1994 (69) E.L.T. 269....

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Associated Capsules (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The Department is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 13th December, 1990 for asst. yr. 1987-88. The first ground is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 48,05,871 being the amount of provision for compensation under the voluntary retirement scheme.2. The assessee-company is a manufacturer of empty hard gelatine capsules for use in pharmaceutical industries. It returned an income of Rs. 9,05,180 for the year under consideration. During the year, the assessee-company introduced a voluntary retirement scheme by a Notification dt. 6th June, 1986, and updated on 18th June, 1986, for its employees. In all 218 employees opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme. As per the terms of the scheme, assessee computed its liability at Rs. 91,33,219 exclusive of gratuity payable to them and debited the same in its accounts.3. As per the scheme, the payment was to be made in two parts. Part I payment amounted to Rs. 43,27,348 which was to be paid before th...

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Another Vs. M/S. Kulkarni and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR378; 1999(1)BomCR269

ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. This is challenging the Award dated 14th June, 1996. The respondent No. 1 was granted the work of construction of a School Building at Malvani, Malad (West). The petitioners issued a letter dated 6th May, 1985 entrusting the said work to the respondent No. 1. This was because of the earlier grant of work to the respondent No. 1 for building a school of Gandhigram Scheme School at Juhu. The same rates were affected for the construction at Malwani. Respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 8th May, 1985 giving proposal for the lumpsum payment for steel for the construction with an additional premium of 9.9%. The Additional Municipal Commissioner gave approval on 15-5-85 to the said proposal of the respondent No. 1. On 6th August, 1985, the Executive Engineer conveyed the said decision of the Additional Municipal Commissioner. The date of commencement was fixed at 11-7-85 and to be completed before September 1988. The contract was valued at Rs. 1,33,20,500/-. On 12th D...

Nagnath S/O Balwant Kaley Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, N. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR601; 1999(1)BomCR799

ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. All that the petitioner wants is that the Land Acquisition Officer, having come up to the stage of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) and having decided to drop the proceedings for whatever reasons, should have also carried out the exercise of determining the compensation as per sub-section (2) of section 48 of the said Act.2. Land bearing Survey No. 108 of city of Nagpur, area approximately admeasuring 34 acres, was sought to be acquired for which notification under section 4 of the Act came to he issued on 3-5-1962. This was followed by the usual enquiry and Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 29-9-1985.3. No doubt, in the mean time, drastic changes were introduced so far as urban properties are concerned by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the right to hold property was curtailed to a great extent.4. However, so far as the right available to the owner of the land under section 48 of the Act is...

Ashok S/O Shankarrao Shinde Vs. Probodhan Shikshan Sanstha and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR36; 1999(1)BomCR800; (1998)2BOMLR870; 1999(1)MhLj348

ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. The matter poses a very interesting question as to whether a person appointed as a peon in a private school can claim promotion to the post of a clerk as per the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1971 and Conditions of Service Rules, 1981. The relevant rules are Rules 2(1)(j) and (6) of Schedule 'B' as well Rule 12 of Schedule 'F' of the aforesaid Rules.2. The first of the two Schedules, namely Schedule B, pertains to the qualification of teaching staff in clause (I) to (III) and clause (IV) pertain to qualification for non-teaching staff in the school. The very first post dealt with under clause (IV) of Schedule B is that of a junior clerk. It prescribes merely minimum qualification and nothing. There is no mention in the said Rules of the manner in which the post is to be filled in. We take it that like any other post in an aided school this post was filled by way of recruitment, according t...

M/S. Kitiku Imports Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Savitri Metals Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR39; 1998(4)BomCR602

ORDERP.S. Patankar, J. 1. This petition has been filed under section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the prayer for removing 2nd respondent as Arbitrator in the proceedings between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1. The purchase order between the parties dated 21-5-1996 provided for the arbitration clause. It reads as under: 'Clause 10 - Arbitration : In case of any dispute, the same shall be referred to sole arbitrator, who is Managing Director of Savitri Metals Ltd. whosedecision/award shall be final and binding on both the parties without anydemur or re-course.'2. The dispute and difference arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in respect of business carried on between them. The respondent No. 1 invoked above-mentioned arbitration clause. Hence the respondent No. 2 sent a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner sent reply and stating that there is no agreement between the petition...

Anand Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1999]237ITR587(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 three questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the taking over of the undertaking of the assessee-company did not constitute a slump sale but only the sale of the individual assets of the undertaking ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in determining the cost of the assets for the purpose of capital gains the consumers contribution has to be deducted from the cost of the assets for capital gains and the application of Section 41(2) and if so by following what procedure ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the solatium given to the applicant of Rs. 2,20,000 was taxable ?'2. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, the controversy therein is covered by the decision of this court in Akola Elec...