Mumbai Court September 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Fancy Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD467(Mum.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 26th July, 1996 for the asst. yr. 1991-92. "1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) I, Mumbai, erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,37,50,000 in respect of mortgaged debt while computing capital gain under s. 45 of IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said learned CIT has also erred in not setting off mortgaged debt of Rs. 1,37,50,000, while computing capital gain without observing the ratio laid down in the following decisions : 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said learned CIT has also erred in not following the decision Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), particularly when on this issue there are conflicting decisions of various High Courts." 3. The assessee vide its letter dt. 3rd September, 1998 has also taken the following additional grounds : "1. On the fact and in the circumstance of...
Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR536; 1999(1)BomCR107; 1998(3)MhLj940
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. By judgment and order dated 24th April, 1998, the learned Single Judge has referred this matter to a larger Bench for determination of the following issue :--'Whether while deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction as contemplated under section 9-A the parties are required to be given opportunity to lead evidence?'3. The Court has referred the matter because in the opinion of the Court, it was of considerable importance as it was generally raised on the Original Side of this Court as well as in the subordinate courts. Section 9-A, which is added to the Civil Procedure Code by an Act known as Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, reads as under :--'9-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appoin...
Meena Jayendra Thakur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR144
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.1.1995/20.1.1995 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 701 of 1994. The appellant is the wife of the detenu, Jayendra Vishnu Thakur. The State of Maharashtra issued an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act') on 5.2.1992, The detenu was served with the order of detention on 13.8.1993 while he was in custody on being arrested on 23.7.1993 in some other criminal case. On 15.9.1993, a declaration was made under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act thereby extending the period within which the procedural requirements under Section 8 of the said Act could be complied with. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board on 15.9.1993 and the Advisory Board gave its opinion stating that there exists sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned and on the ...
Fancy Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]75ITD467(Mum)
ORDERM. V. R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26-7-1996 for the assessment year 1991-92.2. The grounds taken read as follows:'1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) I, Mumbai, erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,37,50,000 in respect of mortgaged debt while computing capital gain under section 45 of Income Tax Act 1961.2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the said learned Commissioner has also erred in not setting off mortgaged debt of Rs. 1,37,50,000, while computing capital gain without observing the ratio laid down in the following decisions :(a) CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal : [1991]190ITR56(Bom) (b) N. Vajrapani Naidu v. Income Tax Officer (1989) 28 ITD 459 (Mad)(c) N.M. A. Mohammed Baneefa v. Income Tax Officer (1987) 23 ITD 409 (Mad) and(d) CIT v. Daksha Ramanlal : [1992]197ITR123(Guj) 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said learned ...
Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT859Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in these appeals in the classification of pesticides manufactured and cleared by the appellant between 20th July, 1996 to till 31st October, 1997. In the order impugned in these appeals the Commissioner has held that pesticides to be classifiable under Heading 2942.00 of the tariff and imposed penalties on the assessee and V.K. Raval, a Director.2. Both the sides agree that the classification of the technical grade pesticides in question would have to be under Heading 38.08 of the Tariff as claimed by the appellant in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pesticides Manufacturers & Formulators Association of India v. Union of India -1999 (30) RLT 231. The impugned order demanding duty and imposing penalty on the manufacturer and its Director are not maintainable.3. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief as per law....
National Organic Chemical Inds. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC406Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant had filed price list regulating the clearances of the products manufactured by it for the period from 1-12-1982 to 30-11-1983. In the price list, the deductions claimed on account of post manufacturing expenses were indicated. The appellant worked out the assessable value on which duty is payable at the sale price of the goods in such a manner it claimed deduction to the account of these expenses beyond what was permissible. It was advised by the Asstt.Commissioner to amend these price lists which it did not, which resulted in higher assessable value than they had declared.2. The appellant was issued a letter dated 10-3-1993 by the Jurisdictional Superintendent. In that letter, the Superintendent has told the appellant that appellant had recovered from its customer to which it sold the goods, duty on the deduction of the post manufacturing expenses which it had initially shown in the price list.Since this amount had not been paid to the Government the appellant was ca...
Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Kalidas Devram Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALLMR413; 2000(2)BomCR630; [2000(84)FLR157]; 1999(3)MhLj857
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Ghuge, learned Counsel for the petitioner Company and Shri S.S. Pawar, learned Counsel for the respondent employee. Rule. Taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent.2. The respondent employee came to be appointed on probation with effect from 1st November, 1986 as an Assembler in the Final Assembly section of the petitioner-company, located in the MIDC area at Waluj. The union had submitted a charter of demand and it appears there was some dispute in that regard between the management and the union and as a result of which the operations of the factory were suspended with effect from 7th November, 1987 followed by a lockout which commenced from 23rd November, 1987. The office and supervisory staff, as well as the managerial staff were reportedly exempted from this lockout.3. The respondent was one of the employees covered by the lockout and it is alleged that on 10th February, 1988 he went to the house of one Shri Shashidharan Pillai (Stenoty...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Jetron Laboratories (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Mumbai)105
ORDERM. V.R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-11-1991 for the assessment year 1988-89.2. The ground taken reads as follows :'1, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing to adopt reduction date of gold bonds instead of maturity date for the purpose of cost of acquisition of gold, while computing long-term capital gain.'3. The assessee-company received gifts of gold bonds of total 25,000 gold on various days from three parties between 1-10-1979 and 27-9-1980 as per the details given in para 4 of the assessment order. Subsequently, the company exchanged gold bonds for gold of 15,000 gms. on 24-1-1985 relevant for the assessment year 1986-87 and sold the gold so received on the same date. It received gold for the balance of 10,000 gms. on 13-1-1987 and sold the same on the next day, i.e., 14-1-1987. Under the scheme of National Defence Gold Bonds 1980, the ...
Ajay Chem Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT937Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in this case were a small sector industry operating under the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. Prior to 1-4-1986, they were availing of Notification No. 120/75 which permitted assessment on invoice value. From 1-4-1986, they were operating under the procedure prescribed under Rule 173C(11) as it then existed, where the price of the goods was declared on individual gate pass and duty determined accordingly. In December, 1987, the officers on scrutiny of the invoices found that the prices were not uniform. In certain cases, on the same date, the same goods were sold to the same parties under different rates. On the lack of uniformity on the discount and price the show cause notice dated 28-2-1991 was issued. The methodology was that the invoices issued in one day were grouped together and the highest price charged was selected as the ruling price for that day and differential duty was calculated against the invoices showing lesser price than the standard price. In t...
Parle (Exports) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1999
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT907Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufactured beverage bases which were supplied only to their wholesale traders. The supply was at the different prices.After issuing show cause notice, the Asstt. Collector accepted the highest price charged for every type of beverage base and approved the price list and confirmed the differential duty amounting to Rs. 10,89,000.78. The assessees then filed an appeal. Before the Collector (Appeals) it was claimed that each franchisee holder was a separate class of buyer and therefore separate price charged was permissible. It was claimed that the determining factor for variation in the price was geographical location as also the appraisal made by the assessees of the potential of the franchisee holder. The Collector directed the assessees to produce price data for sustaining the price. The company produced before him the lower price and the highest price for the individual product. The Collector (Appeals) found the data inadequate and termed the fixing of price as "...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »