Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)73ITD205(Mum.)
1. The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 30th December, 1997, of Asstt. CIT, Central Circle 23, Mumbai, under s.158BC of IT Act, 1961. The block period is from 1st April, 1986, to 18th December, 1996.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee is a film actress of Hindi films. She had started her career as a film artist in the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1991-92. Prior to joining films the assessee had certain modelling assignments for consumer products.She had also produced a film viz., "Tamanna" under the banner of M/s.Pooja Bhatt Productions, her proprietary concern. On 18th December, 1996, there was a search and seizure operation under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, at the residential premises of the assessee. Cash of Rs. 98,500 and some documents were seized. A notice under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961, was issued to the assessee on 11th April, 1997, in response to which the assessee had filed the return of income declaring Nil undisclos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)66TTJ(Mumbai)817
ORDERM. A. Bakshi J.M.The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dt. 30-12-1997, of Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle 23, Mumbai, under section 158BC of Income Tax Act, 1961. The block period is from 1-4-1986, to 18-12-1996.2. The relevant facts, in this case, are that the assessee is a film actress of Hindi films. She had started her career as a film artist in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1991-92. Prior to joining films the assessee had certain modeling assignments for consumer products. She had also produced a film viz., 'Tamanna' under the banner of M/s Pooja Bhatt Productions, her proprietary concern. On 18-12-1996, there was a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the residential premises of the assessee. Cash of Rs. 98,500 and some documents were seized. A notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued to the assessee on 11-4-1997, in response to which the assessee had filed the retur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)67TTJ(Mumbai)824
ORDERWaiver or reduction of interest under sections 215, 217 and 139(8)Catch Note:After taking note of factual position the assessing officer waived interest levied under sections 139(8), 215 and 217--The Commissioner invoked provision of section 263 and held that the order of assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue--Not justified--Commissioner was not justified in holding order of assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because after having satisfied with the circumstances mentioned in rules 40 and 117A the assessing officer waived interest levied under sections 139(8), 215 and 217Held:If the clauses of the relevant rules under which interest has been waived, are read carefully, it would be seen that it is the satisfaction of the assessing officer that should prevail while reducing or waiving the interest. It is the subjective satisfaction of the assessing officer about the various circumstances which will guide him as to whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These are fourteen appeals in all by different assessees. All the appeals are against the orders of the learned CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, (the Act) in their respective cases. Four appeals by National Plastic & Allied Industries (NPAI) are against the combined order dt. 18th March, 1992, for asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1987-88.Similarly four appeals by National Plastic Enterprises (NPE) are against the combined order dt. 18th March, 1992, for the asst. yrs.1984-85 to 1987-88. Two appeals are by Shri M. V. Parekh (MVP) in his individual capacity against the combined order dt. 17th March, 1992, for the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85. Four appeals are by Shri M. V.Parekh in his capacity as the Karta of M. V. Parekh, HUF (MVPH) against the combined order dt. 17th March, 1992, for asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1987-88. All the appeals have a common background and emanate from the same set of circumstances. All the four assessees have a common grievance against the respective orders pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)73ITD84(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1987-88 is directed against the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 of the Act.2. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, an assessee, who exports goods out of India was entitled to 80HHC deduction at the rate of 4% of export turnover of that year plus 50% of the profit above the said 4% of the export turnover. It was also required to create a reserve to the extent of the deduction claimed under s. 80HHC. The assessee, in this case, created a reserve of Rs. 60,90,000 and claimed deduction thereof. Due to the increase in the total income computed by the AO, the amount of profit was increased and deduction was also computed and allowed at a higher amount of Rs. 70,08,819.3. On scrutiny of the assessment records, the CIT noticed that the allowance of deduction at Rs. 70,08,819 being higher than the reserve created of Rs. 60,90,000 the assessee could not have been allowed deduction more than the latter amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(99)LC705Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.3.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants filed classification list in respect of control samples of P & P Medicaments and claimed exemption under Notification No. 171/70 dated 21.11.1970.3. A show cause notice was given to appellants alleging that appellants were not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 171/70-CE as they had not fulfilled the conditions of the notification. The Collector of Central Excise vide impugned order confirmed the demand on the ground that samples were not distinctly different from the regular trade packing. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- was also imposed under 173Q of Central Excise Rules.4. Learned Advocate appearing for appellants submits that appellants had clearly complied with the conditi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)73ITD123(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a company. It was granted certificate of Registration No. 23334 of 1980, by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, on 24-10-1980. Photocopy of the Certificate of Incorporation is provided at page 6 of the paper compilation filed on behalf of the assessee. As per the Certificate commencement of business was granted to the assessee dated 25th November, 1980, a copy of which is provided at page 7 of the paper compilation, and accordingly the assessee commenced its business. The company is a public limited company. Its business is that of investment and trading in shares by way of speculation and ready shares. M/s. H. B. Financial Consultants Pvt.Ltd., H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi was the Managers to issue of equity shares of 170000 at Rs. 10 each for cash at par. The registered office of the assessee was at 1111-A, Raheja Chambers, 213, Backbay Reclamation Scheme, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400 021. The authorised share capital was Rs. 30,00,000 divided into 3,00,000 eq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. By this application under s. 254(2) of IT Act, the CIT, Mumbai City I has requested us to rectify certain mistakes, which according to him, are apparent from record. Our attention has been invited to p. 20 of our order which is as below : "Thus, there cannot be dispute in this case that in any case w.e.f. 10th July, 1985, the date on which ratification was exchanged, the royalties and fees for technical services became taxable in India. As far as the prospective taxation is concerned, there is no dispute on that account. In India, fiscal year starts from 1st April and ends on 31st of March. Therefore, if, as per Article XVI(2)(b), tax had been imposed in respect of income and capital assessable in any assessment year commencing on or after 1st of April, 1985, there would have been no dispute." It was, however, submitted that in spite of these observations the Tribunal has held that the remittance of Rs. 20,67,222 made to M/s Dol on 30th November, 1985, i.e. subsequent to the date (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(84)LC882Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The principal question for consideration in this appeal is classification of product marketed under the label 'KIT- KAT' manufactured by the appellant. The secondary questions are whether the notices issued for recovery of the duty alleged to be short paid on the product manufactured and cleared from the appellant's factory at Usgao in Goa for the period July, 1995 to August, 1997, is barred by limitation, and whether the appellant is liable to penalty.2. The principal ingredients of the product are wafer, sugar, milk powder, wheat flour, cocoa paste, cocoa butter, hydrogenated vegetable oil and process additives. The process of manufacture is in four parts.The wafer is made out of wheat flour, oil and other such goods. A filling made of praline and other substances is sandwiched between layer of such wafers and waffles. The sandwiched wafers are thereafter coated with chocolate manufactured from the cocoa paste, cocoa butter, sugar, so as to completely cover it. The resultant prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(88)LC153Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Common issue involved in these three appeals filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods cleared by M/s. Textile Auxiliaries and Chemical Industries during the period from 1.4.1992 to 21.5.1992.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice issued to them. In fact the Postal Department had returned the notice with remark 'NOT CLAIMED'. We, therefore, heard Shri A.M. Tilak learned D.R., and perused the records.The learned D.R. submitted that the Assistant Collector denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the respondents during the period from 1.4.1992 to 21.5.1992 in view of notification No. 55/92 which amended Notification No. 175/86 and classified the product Textile Binder under heading No. 3906.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. However, on appeal by the Respondents the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned common order dated 25.1.1995...
Tag this Judgment!