Mumbai Court April 2000 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Bom)67; [2000]245ITR823(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The assessee approached the Assessing Officer for issuing' a no objection certificate for remitting certain amounts to the foreign company. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the amounts spent by the assessee towards air-fare for the foreign technicians, their boarding and lodging and other local expenses formed part of the fees payable to the foreign company. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to deduct tax on this amount before issuance of the no objection certificate. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the above expense was in the nature of a constructive receipt in the hands of the foreign company and, therefore, the same was liable to tax under Section 9(1)(vii) read with Section 115A and Section 44D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to deduct tax at source on all payments irrespective of the fact whether they are remitted to the foreign company or were spent on the foreign...
Atmaram Dayalal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC42
1. After hearing both the sides on the stay application, it appeared that the main appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Shri Ramtake submitted that the proceeding may be confined to the disposal of the stay application alone. We find that the same issue was before us earlier and very substantial arguments have been advanced by both the sides. Therefore, little propriety exists in confining ourselves in disposing of the stay application. We, therefore, proceed to decide the main appeal after granting waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. One lakh imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants registered themselves with the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council on 12-1-1987. The Import Trade Control Policy at the material time permitted import of machinery, equipments etc.required for Gem and Jewellery Industry by actual users as certified by the council named above. The present appellants imported four machines on 23-1-1987 and cleared the same on 3-2-1987 in terms of ...
Bharat Paints and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC656
1. These two appeals are filed by the same appellants and involve the same set of facts. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.The appellants were manufacturing products prescribed as (1) picture varnish (2) paper coating and (3) paper glazer. In the classification list filed in 1991-92, they had claimed classification of the products under Heading 3208.90. In the classification list pertaining to the year 1992-93, however, they classified the products under Heading 3210.90. The Assistant Commissioner first approved this classification but later vide notice dated 8-4-1993 sought to change back to Heading 3208.90. After hearing the assessees, the Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the classification under Heading 3208.90 and directed the assessees to file a revised classification list. The assessees then filed an appeal.The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the classification, the present appeal is filed before us.2. Before us Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate argued the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›