Mumbai Court February 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gill and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR362(Bom)
1. Appeal admitted. Since a very short point is involved, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment. 2. Two points have been raised by the Department in appeal : (i) Whether the assessee has proved that the presentation articles did not possess advertisement value and, therefore, it was entitled to claim deduction in respect of cost of such articles ? (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of secret commission paid by it 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The assessment year in question is 1981-82. The assessee carried on business during the relevant assessment year of dealing in cotton bales on wholesale basis and earning commission, brokerage and service charges on imports and exports of goods arranged by the assessee for its customers in India and abroad. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of the presentation articles. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim under Rule 6B. In appeal, however, the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shamlal Balram Gurbani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)506; [2001]249ITR501(Bom)
1. By this appeal, the Department seeks to challenge the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur, by which it has been held that invocation of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was erroneous inasmuch as no material came to be detected during the search operations. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows. A search was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on March 25, 1996. Anotice under Section 158BC was issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish the return of income for the block period, i.e.. April 1, 1985, to March 25, 1996. On verification of the record, it was found that the asses-see did not file the returns for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 under Section 139(1). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the income of the three years as the income of the assessee for the block period. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal. The...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR701(Bom)
1. The assessee-firm was in the business of selling flats. The firm stood dissolved on June 30, 1986. Prior to the date of dissolution, the flat in question was used by the firm as an office. It was on the ground floor of the building. It had remained unsold till the time of dissolution. The dissolution was pursuant to a family arrangement dated July 11, 1986. The firm stood dissolved by mutual consent. Under the dissolution, three out of four partners retired except Smt. Sufia Suleman who was to continue the partnership business. All the partners belong to the same family. The continuing partner agreed to continue the business from July 1, 1986. For the assessment year 1987-88, return of income was filed by the dissolved firm. Since the assessee was in the business of selling flats, the Assessing Officer treated the office premises as stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer took the last sale transaction into account as on July 15, 1985, at the rate of Rs. 252 per sq. ft. and, on the as...
Tag this Judgment!Harishchandra Maheshwar Karandikar Vs. Shantaram Ghila Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR1
V.K. Barde, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming it to be a public interest litigation. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 is running theatre by name Rajas Chitra Mandir on the house property No. 1202 in Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon without having proper licence to run the theatre. It is also contended that the building of the theatre is not in good condition and as per the norms prescribed for a theatre. The further contention is that running of the theatre in that place is causing nuisance to the neighbourhood because of the heavy traffic jam on the narrow lane and presence of unwanted social elements. The most important allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 has not paid entertainment duty and the authorities are avoiding to recover the entertainment duty from respondent No. 1 and, therefore, it is prayed that the authorities be directed by issuing writ of mandamus to recover entertainment duty from the petitioner by ...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Capsules (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mumbai)817
ORDERM.V. R. Prasad, A.M.This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22-5-1992, for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The first ground is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 under section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act.3. The assessee has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 25,000. It is claimed that the factory of the assessee is at Dahanu. i.e., at a distance of 100 miles from Bombay, and so the assessee had to incur this expenditure on its employees. It is also claimed that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not granting the basic deduction under section 37(2A). It is made out that if the basic deduction is not allowed, it means that the disallowance out of entertainment expenditure is of the order of Rs. 15,000 out of the total expenses claimed of Rs. 25,000.4. We are of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the assessee may be allowed the statutory deduction under section 37(2A) of Rs. 5,000. The gro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Associated Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Bom)370
By the CourtThe assessee-firm was in the business of selling flats. The firm stood dissolved on 30-6-1986. Prior to the date of dissolution, the flat in question was used by the firm as an office. It was on the ground floor of the building. It had remained unsold till the time of dissolution. The dissolution was pursuant to a family arrangement dated 11-7-1986. The firm stood dissolved by mutual consent. Under the dissolution, three out of four partners retired except Smt. Sufia Suleman who was to continue the partnership business. All the partners belong to the same family. The continuing partner agreed to continue the business from 1-7-1986. For the assessment year 1987-88, return of income was filed by the dissolved firm. Since the assessee was in the business of selling flats, the assessing officer treated the office premises as stock-in-trade. The assessing officer took the last sale transaction into account as on 15-7-1985, at the rate of Rs. 252 per sq. ft. and on the assumption...
Tag this Judgment!Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by the appellant described as pipe fittings of plastic are classifiable under Heading 3925.19 of the Central Excise Tariff as builders ware. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has found the goods are fittings for gutters and hence classifiable under Heading 3925.19 and confirmed the demand for duty payable under this heading. He has not accepted the contention that the goods are classifiable under Heading 3917.00 and entitled to exemption from duty on the Notification 53/88 up to February 1992 and thereafter by 15/92.2. The representative of the appellant relies upon a decision of the Tribunal in Supreme Industries v. C.C.E., Aurangabad, Appeal E/961/94-C. By that order, he says, the Tribunal has classified the goods manufactured by the appellant, identical to those presently under consideration, under Heading 39.17.3. The departmental representative relies upon the finding of the Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Adjournment is requested by Mr. G.S. Dave, officer excise on the ground that the Advocate R.C. Saxena is held up in Delhi on account of a conference. We consider this request to be entirely improper and dismiss it forthwith.2. We have thereafter heard Mr. Dave and the departmental representative.3. Duty of Rs. 9.08 lakhs has been demanded on the ground that credit was taken on goods covered by invoice, which was not issued by person registered by department as was required by law. We find that the applicant has a strong prima facie case. Invoices were issued in July and August, 1994. The Board issued circular in November 1994, by which the requirement of registration was deferred to 31-12-1994 and invoices issued by unregistered prior to this date was accepted as value for taking Modvat credit. The Commissioner has overlooked this part of the Board circular.4. Duty of Rs. 7.12 lakhs is demanded on the ground that the applicant was incorrect in utilising the material received by it ...
Tag this Judgment!Viraj Forgings Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(93)LC367Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in both the appeals is the same i.e., whether the assessee is entitled to avail of the provisions of Rule 57(4) in respect of the scrap arising in the case of manufacture of steel flanges and bright bars. Each of the assessee has cleared this scrap to job worker for conversion into ingots, which were returned to them were put to use again in the manufacture of flanges and bars. Each of the assessee has not paid duty, on the scrap claiming that the action were covered by Rule 57(4). The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view in each of the orders that the scrap was not an input as such, or a partially processed input, and hence would not fall within the scope of Rule 57(4).2. The same question with regard for an earlier period of the Rule 57(3) is pending for consideration by the larger bench to whom it has been referred by the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. Indian Steel and Allied Industries to resolve the contradictory view that in Chloride Industr...
Tag this Judgment!Amphray Laboratries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT153Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is the parties appeal against the above captioned Order No.PCJ-197/B.III/94 dated 5-5-1994, praying for setting aside the same with consequential relief.The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant manufactures various Bulk Drugs (organic and inorganic chemicals) falling under Chapter Nos. 28 and 29 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Superintendent Central Excise Range VI Division Kalyan issued a show cause notice on 3-5-1993 alleging contravention of Rule 57G of Central Excise Act, that raw material of 1510.70 kgs Iodine is received as inputs in the appellant's factory for the manufacture of final product Iodine IP/BP/USP and taken Modvat credit of Rs. 90,247.77 ps.under Rule 57A without declaring the final product in the declaration and exported lodine/IP/BP/USP under bond of the quantity 500 kgs and 1000 kgs as 20-10-1992, and 29-10-1992 respectively, and calling .upon to show cause why the above amount should not be disallowed and recovered from t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »