Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Pu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Bom)97; [2001]247ITR1(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J.The above group of appeals raise common questions of law. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 81 of 1999 are taken into consideration.2. Two questions of law arise in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act.(1) Whether the assessee-trust was assessable as an individual and consequently entitled to deduction under section 80L of the Act ?(2) Whether the assessee-trust violated section 13(1)(d) of the Act in the assessment year 1993-94 by not disinvesting the shares of non-government companies by 31-3-1993 Facts3. The assessee-trust came into existence after 1-6-1973. The assessee-trust was the holder of equity shares of Mafatlal Industries upto 31-3-1993. The same were not disinvested or disposed of by 31-3-1993. The assessee claims that it was entitled to hold the said shares upto 31-3-1993; that, they were required to disinvest on and after 1-4-1993. In this appeal, we are concern...

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Mumbai)882

ORDERR. V. Easwar, J.M.The assessee is a company owned by the Government of India. It functions as the international telecommunication carrier in India. It was incorporated in the year 1986 with the main object of taking over the entire management, control, operations and maintenance of the overseas communication service of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, with all its assets and liabilities with a view to establishing, developing, providing, operating and maintaining all types of international telecommunication networks, systems and services.2. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96, for the previous year ended 31-3-1995, under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer noticed from Schedule 18 of the accounts (network cost) that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 282.60 crores as licence fees to the department of Telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as DOT), The amount was debited to the profit and loss acco...

Dharmaveer Lekhram Sharma and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR9; 2001CriLJ4886; 2001(77)ECC687

P.V. Kakade, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 13 of 1994, wherein in all seven accused persons were involved for commission of the offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as N.D.P.S. Act), out of whom Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for the commission of the offence under section 22 read with section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, and each of them was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 29 read with section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one year.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were acquitted of all the offenc...

Lavonkush S/O Sakharamji Janbhule Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR569

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard both sides.2. This is another case in a row where the Scrutiny Committee has faltered in its duty to comply with the required procedure.3. The main grievance in this writ petition is that the copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell was not furnished to the petitioner. The only stand taken in the reply filed before this Court on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee is that the Vigilance Cell Report was forwarded to the employer of the petitioner and, therefore, it must be presumed that the same was supplied to the petitioner. This plea, in my view, is wholly unacceptable. Besides this, I find that there is no mention in the impugned order that the Vigilance Cell Report was called for and considered by the Committee. 4. The rights of the parties cannot be determined on the basis of presumption as sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent-Committee. Since there is no reference in the impugned ord...

Shikshan Mandal, Throuhg Its General Secretary and anr. Vs. Presiding ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR558

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dated July 29, 1986 in Appeal No. STN/34/1985.Briefly stated, respondent No. 2 was appointed in the educational institution run by the petitioner No. 1 Society, being Civil and Rural Engineering Polytechnic (Pipri), Wardha at Wardha, as Inspector in Surveying. In due course, he was promoted as Lecturer in Civil Engineer, in the year 1972. The post of Head of the Department in Civil Engineering of the said educational institution became vacant in or around the year 1983. The Staff Selection Committee interviewed the prospective candidates, in which respondent No. 2 was selected, for being appointed on the said post. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as the Head of the Department in Civil Engineering vide appointment letter dated July 14, 1983. In the present case we are concerne...

Maneklal Jainarayanji Sabu Vs. Ruprao Ganpatrao Bhonde

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR841; 2001(2)BomCR71

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Admit. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Achalpur, dated February 10,2000, below Exhibit 5, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1998. The impugned order passed by the Court below reads, thus :---'Heard the argument made by the Counsel of both sides and perused the record. The lower Court dismissed the claim of the appellant. And he came before this Court to challenge the correctness of the said order. Now, he has put this application for the grant of the relief by the interim order. Thus, the relief is to be granted or rejected by the order on merit cannot be granted by the interim order and it is when the lower Court rejected it on merit. Hence, the application is hereby rejected.' 2. In my view, this is not the correct approach adopted by the lower Appellate Court while refusing interim relief, especially when the appeal is admitted and pend...

PragvIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT849Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant on the ground that the furniture manufactured by it was not entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in entry 4 to the Table to Notification 80/90. He found that the condition prescribed for availing the exemption that such furniture is made wholly of material other than materials falling within Chapter 44 of the Tariff was not complied with. He also found that the extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section HA of the Act applicable for the reason that the assessee had suppressed the fact that the furniture was made partly of wood which falls under Chapter 44.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. We are not able to agree that the extended period of limitation would not apply. The appellant had claimed the benefit of notification, an...

income Tax Officer Vs. Manav Greys Exim (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross-appeals pertain to the asst. yr. 1990-91. The issue centres round the questions as to whether assessee can be deemed to be in default in respect of the tax and interest is chargeable, even if the recipients filed the returns and paid the tax on such income.2. Facts in short are that the assessee-company is a manufacturer of textile goods. A part of the process such as dyeing, bleaching, etc.was given on job work basis to outsiders. Payments were made to them without deducting tax at source as required under Section 194C of the Act. Total payments made to different concerns during the year was Rs. 1,02,01,292 on which the assessee was to deduct tax at 2.24 per cent and make payment in the Government treasury. Assessee failed to pay.Hence, the AO passed an order under Section 201(1) of the Act directing the assessee to pay Rs. 2,28,508, by holding that the assessee is a deemed defaulter. He also charged interest of Rs. 1,37,100 under Section 201(1A) of the Act. For the pu...

ito Vs. Manav Greys Exim (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)115

ORDERD. Manmohan, J.M.These cross-appeals pertain to the assessment year 1990-91. The issue centres round the questions as to whether assessee can be deemed to be in default in respect of the tax and interest is chargeable, even if the recipients filed the returns and paid the tax on such income.2. Facts in short are that the assessee-company is a manufacturer of textile goods. A part of the process such as dyeing, bleaching, etc., was given on job work basis to outsiders. Payments were made to them without deducting tax at source as required under section 194C of the Act. Total payments made to different concerns during the year was Rs, 1,02,01,292 on which the assessee was to deduct tax at 2.24 per cent and make payment in the government treasury. Assessee failed to pay. Hence, the assessing officer passed an order under section 201(1) of the Act directing the assessee to pay Rs. 2,28,508, by holding that the assessee is a deemed defaulter. He also charged interest of Rs. 1,37,100 un...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common consideration in these six appeals is the value at which cess leviable under the Paper and Paper Board Cess Rules, 1981, should be levied on the paper manufactured by the respondent. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that this value should be the value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The appeal seeks a finding that for purpose of levy of cess, the value should include the element of excise duty payable on the goods.Reliance is placed upon the definition of the term "value" occurring in the Explanation to Section 9(1) of The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, which is the authority for levy and collection of cess on goods manufactured or produced in an industry.CCE v. Engineering Co. -1997 (92) E.L.T. 303 has explained that the definition contained in the explanation to Section 9(1) of the Act is only for the purpose of the proviso under that subsection which provides that cess shall not e...