Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999]239ITR319(Bom)
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 Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the secret commission paid by the assessee is deductible as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This reference pertains to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. In the above assessment years, the assessee-company claimed to have paid secret commission of Rs. 1,31,209 and Rs. 1,22,407, respectively, allegedly, for the purpose of securing business. Since the assessee had not filed the relevant evidence regarding payment of commission, the Income-tax Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee for deduction of the above amount under Section 37(1) of the Act in the computation of its income. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)IIILLJ381Bom
G.D. Patil, J.1. The petitioner employer has challenged the order dated February 18, 1992 passed by the Third Labour Court, Nagpur partly allowing respondent-employee's application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), holding him entitled to claim Rs. 2,76,390.18 p. from the petitioner with 12% p.a. interest on the amount of Rs. 2,57,287.48 p. w.e.f. April 21, 1989 till payment of the amount.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm having its place of business at Nagpur and it prints and publishes a daily newspaper 'Nava-Bharat' from Nagpur. The respondent was one of the employees of the petitioner having been appointed on December 4, 1951 as Sub-Editor. In a dispute relating to categorisation of employees, however, it has been held that the respondent was a Chief Sub- Editor. The respondent, alongwith other working journalists employed with the petitioner, had raised an industrial dispute for not (sic) being given the catego...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)BomCR592; 1999(2)MhLj489
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur on 20th March, 1993 in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 1984. The said order came to be passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the defendants, on 21-1-1993 proving that since defendant No. 2(4) is dead and her heirs are not brought on record and the entire suit abates as the suit agreement is indivisible and that right to sue does not survive to the surviving defendants. The Lower Court upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel dismissed that application of defendant Nos. 1 to 8.2. I heard Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kumbhakoni and Mr. Katikar for respondents.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract and also in the alternative for damages. The property belongs to one Mahadeo, father of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Defendant No. 1 is power of attorney holder of defendant No. 2 to 5. The aforesa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(116)ELT296Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Adjournment is sought to these two appeals on the ground that the advocate for the appellant is not able to trace the address of the appellant since they have closed down their office at Goa. We find this request difficult to accept. The appellants registered office is known and indicated in its letter head. Why it should be necessary to locate office long after appeals have been filed and stay applications disposed of which is also not indicated. We therefore decline to adjourn.2. The common question for consideration in both these appeals is whether steel pilings and girders which were manufactured by the appellant and later used for the construction of a bridge across the Chapora river in Goa are liable to duty. The contention that the goods are immovable property and hence not liable to duty is not acceptable.From the process of manufacture indicated in the appeal itself it is clear that the pilings and girders were first separately fabricated and later on used in the construct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT603Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal imported a consignment declared to be metal accessories for immitation jewellery its value to be Rs. 771- per kg. Goods were found to be of brass- The department compared this value with the price of brass scrap in London Metal Exchange (LME), which is stated to have been Rs. 119 FOB per kg. On the ground that the price of manufactured article would in no case be less than the price of the metal from which it was manufactured. Enhancement of the value was proposed as Rs. 141.80 per kg. FOB, taking into account the LME price of brass and manufacturing charges at 20%. The Asstt. Collector did not accept the contention of the importer before him that the goods were made of brass waste and hence the price of prime metal should not apply. He confirmed the proposal in the notice.2. The Collector (Appeals) to whom the importer appealed was not able to agree with this view. He said that the department had not shown that the transaction value was wrong or estab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(84)LC772Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant imported, au consignment from Hong Kong declared to be button cells with no details of the model number either in the invoice of the supplier, a person other than the manufacturer of the goods or in the bill of entry. The price was declared to be Hong Kong $ 0.04 per cell. Examination of the consignment showed the model of some of the button cells to be SGI. Notice was issued to the importer proposing enhancement of value to US $ 0.025 per cell. The notice indicated that this was the price for the goods specified in the price list dated March 1991 of M/s. Chromex, the manufacturer of button cell at Hong Kong. Notice also proposed the confiscation of goods under Clause (m) of Section 111 on account of misdeclaration of value and Clause (d) since as the enhanced value part of the consignment was in excess of the import licence produced, as also penalty. The importer in reply contended that the price list was unsigned and received by fax and hence not acceptable. He prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(83)LC63Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of HDPE Tapes and Strips and filed a classification list No. 1/91-92 dated 1.4.1991 and 2/91-92 dated 25.7.1991 and claimed the classification of HDPE Tapes and Strips of width not exceeding 5 m.m. and of HDPE woven sacks under Chapter Heading 54 of the Central Excise Tariff. The classification list was approved provisionally by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Respondents filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise and Collector of Central Excise vide Order-in-Appeal dated 10.2.1993 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner to redetermine the issue in accordance with the principles of natural justice.2. In pursuance to this remand order, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise vide order in-original dated 31.1.1994 approved the classification list ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(85)LC143Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant filed, in August, 1986, a declaration under Rule 57G indicating inter alia the inputs on which Modvat credit was proposed to be taken and proceeded to take credit on the duty paid on these goods.The final product manufactured were ingots and billets and the inputs include Came set, refractory bricks and IB mix. By notice dated 4.12.1987 the department proposed recovery of the credit taken on these goods on the ground that they were used to line walls of the furnace and other such equipments in the appellant's factory and therefore were not inputs defined in Rule 57A. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated 15.4.1988 confirmed the demand. On appeal from this order, the Collector (Appeals) held that proceedings will be regulated by time limit specified in Section 11A of the Act, which according to him, would apply (since at the relevant time there was no time limit prescribed under Rule 57I). He said that by amendment made to Section 11A by the amending Act which came i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR297; 1999(4)BomCR104; 2000(1)MhLj94
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. Bom./15/96 and Appeal No, Bom./28/96, dated 16th May 1997. Writ Petition No. 2937/ 1997 has been filed by the Trustees of S.P.R. Jain Kanyashala Trust and Sarvajanik Education Society and Writ Petition No. 3708/1997 has been filed by Ms. Lata Rukhana, who is working as an Asstt. Teacher under the aforesaid Trust, in S.T. Mehta Women's Jr. College of Arts, at Cama Lane, Bombay. This common order, as indicated above, is under challenge in these writ petitions and they were heard together. Therefore, I am disposing of these petitions by this common judgment.2. The controversy involved in these writ petitions centres round the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Greater Bombay dated 22nd February 1996, whereby he had pointed out to the Principal, S.T. Women College, Kama Lane, Ghatkopar (W), Bombay-86, that the petitioner -Smt. Lata Rukhana was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR575; 2000CriLJ271
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant/accused was tried for possession of 45 grains of charas in contravention of section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the said 'Act'), which is punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the said Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined 4 witnesses in support of the said charge. The appellant examined two witnesses in his defence. By impugned judgment dated 20-8-1998, which is subject matter of the appeal, the appellant was held guilty of possession of 45 grams of charas and was sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, S.I. for one year under section 20(b)(ii) of the said Act. The period of detention, during which the appellant/accused was in custody from 4-12-97 till the date of judgment, was set off in terms of section 428 Cr. P.C.2. The prosecution case, as revealed by P.I. Lavu Mamletdar of Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station, Panaji who is the o...
Tag this Judgment!