Mumbai Court December 2002 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.
Cit Vs. Vishwas D. Ranade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN218(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.In this income-tax reference relating to the assessment year 1976-77, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the revenue has referred the following questions for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in interpreting the implication of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum : [1981]129ITR440(SC) and consequently holding that there was a notional partition on the death of the karta/deceased and, therefore, the ancestral/Hindu undivided family property did not belong to the HUF as the HUF did not survive ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have directed assessments of 4/5th of the capital gains excluding only the share of the deceased Shri Digambar Hari Ranade ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in consequence of question No. 1, in ho...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Padma Nutrients Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT438Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four appeals have been filed by Revenue against a common Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Shri Ishwar Singh, learned JDR appearing for Revenue states that the impugned order has been reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under its Order No. 150-R/97, dated 30-6-1997. The departmental appeal has been filed as per the Board's finding that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not proper and legal for the reasons set out in Paragraph 9A to F of the said Order of Review. The learned JDR reiterates the said reasons as also the grounds of appeal contained in the departmental appeal. He, further emphasises the following:- (1) The Commissioner should have appreciated that the provisional assessment was done not on account of applicability of Notification No. 203/92, dated 19-5-1992 but on the ground of chemical test of the goods. (2) The Commissioner was wrong in applying the principle of comity of courts is holding D.R.I. action a...
Bajaj Health and Nutrition Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT181Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits as follows :- (1) L-3 Ketothreohexuronic Acid Lactone (crude) imported by the appellants at Chennai have been classified as Vitamin C under Heading 2936.27 and charged, to Anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 104/2000, dated 21-7-2000 apart from confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalties on the appellants' firm as well as its directors under 2 identically worded orders in original. (2) The imported goods are raw material in crude form, used for manufacture of Vitamin C, of yellow colour and of a purity less than 96%. (3) Vitamin C is manufactured out of such imported raw material which is of white colour and of purity above 99%, for which necessary permission has been taken from Food & Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State as well as the appellants are registered with the Central Excise Authorities. The finished goods manufactured by the appellants conform to the specifications in the Pharmac...
Chandrakant Govind Sutar Vs. M.K. Associates and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR799; 2003(4)BomCR169; 2003(1)MhLj1011
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code takes exception to the order passed by the District Judge, Raigad dated 29th July, 1998 in Civil Misc. Application No. 114 of 1997. The said Misc. Application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. The District Court rejected that application on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner. That decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application. 2. This Revision Application was heard on 3rd December, 2002, when I was persuaded to take a view that it is maintainable, amended provisions of Civil Procedure Code notwithstanding. However, after that view was pronounced in open Court, immediately thereafter Mr. Oka, learned Counsel for the petitioner, mentioned the matter and in his usual fairness brought to my notice that certain decisions relevant on the issue of maintainability of the Revision have not been placed before ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Matchwell Electricals (i) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CTR(Bom)160; [2003]263ITR227(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj160
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has come for our opinion at the instance of the Department. The said Reference concerns Assessment Year 1977-78 and Assessment Year 1978-79. The question referred to above is as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the admitted position that the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting in respect of its business activities, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the export duty draw back and cash assistance from the Govt. is assessable in the hands of the assessee on the receipt basis and not on accrual basis and consequently holding that the addition of Rs 2,26,227/- and Rs. 5,34,255/- made by the ITO are not warranted?'FACTS:2. Assessee is a Public Limited Company. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical appliances. It follows the accounting year ending 30th September. The assesse is also engaged in exporting ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanjeev Woollen Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Bom)97; [2003]264ITR68(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Both the above appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, are taken up together as they deal with common questions of law and facts. Appeal No. 9 of 2001 concerns asst. yr. 1992-93 whereas, Appeal No. 10 of 2001 concerns asst. yr. 1993-94. For the asst. yr. 1992-93, the assessee valued the opening stock at the market rate of Rs. 90 per kg. and they valued the closing stock at a higher market rate of Rs. 130 per kg. and, accordingly, for the asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee valued the opening stock at Rs. 130 per kg. There was no closing stock for the asst. yr. 1993-94. Therefore, the main point which arises for determination is whether valuing the closing stock at higher market price was done by the assessee to avail excess deduction under Section 80HHC for asst. yr. 1992-93 and to suppress the profits of the subsequent asst. yr. 1993-94.2. Accordingly, the following questions of law arise for determination :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Holdings
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Bom)243; [2004]270ITR593(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The above three appeals raise common question of fact and law and, therefore, they are taken up together for hearing and final disposal. They are filed by the Department. They are for the asst. yrs. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. For the sake of convenience, facts in Appeal No. 1318 of 2000 are required to be stated. In all the three appeals, the following question of law arises for determination.'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest income earned by the assessee was taxable under the head 'Other sources of income' and not under the head 'Business income' and, therefore, the AO was not justified in charging maximum marginal rate under Section 161(1A) ?'Facts2. On 25th May, 1989, a return of income was filed by M/s. J.K. Holdings returning income of Rs. 1,76,360. M/s J.K. Holdings is owned by K.J. Family Trust. The assessee had accepted deposits and had advanced loans to various parties. It had paid interest for borrowings and it received interest f...
Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR695
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. Heard, by consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. Advocate for the respondents waives service.2. These two writ petitions impugn the same order passed by Mr. V.G. Bodhankar, Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. By this impugned order the said Presiding Officer has partly allowed an Appeal No. 34/1998 filed by the present respondent No. 2 against the management and others. Of these two writ petitions, Writ Petition No. 2165/2002 has been filed by the management and the Head Master whereas Writ Petition No. 3415/2002 has been filed by the teacher. The facts indicate that by order dated 28-12-1996, the concerned teacher their was appointed on the post of Physical Training Teacher (Asstt.). A glance at a typed copy of the order indicates that the original appointment was shown to be of a temporary nature from 1-1-1997, for the probationary period which was specified as two years. The typed copy of the order further indicates that the appointment was on l...
Cit Vs. Sanjeev Woollen Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN209(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.Both the above appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are taken up together as they deal with common questions of law and facts. Appeal No. 9 of 2001 concerns assessment year 1992-93 whereas, Appeal No. 10 of 2001 concerns assessment year 1993-94. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee valued the opening stock at the market rate of Rs. 90 per kg. and they valued the closing stock at a higher market rate of Rs. 130 per kg. and, accordingly, for the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee valued the opening stock at Rs. 130 per kg. There was no closing stock for the assessment year 1993-94. Therefore, the main point which arises for determination is whether valuing the closing stock at higher market price was done by the assessee to avail excess deduction under section 80HHC for assessment year 1992-93 and to suppress the profits of the subsequent assessment year 1993-94.2. Accordingly, the following questions of law arise for determination :'1. Wheth...
Cit Vs. Matchwell Electricals (i) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN159(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.This Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has come for our opinion at the instance of the department. The said Reference concerns assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, The question referred to above is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the admitted position that the assessee has been following mercantile system of accounting in respect of its business activities, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the export duty drawback and cash assistance from the government is assessable in the hands of the assessee on the receipt basis and not on accrual basis and consequently holding that the addition of Rs. 2,26,227 and Rs. 5,34,255 made by the Income Tax Officer are not warranted Facts2. Assessee is a Public Limited Company. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical appliances. It follows the accounting year ending 30th September. The assessee is also engaged in exporting it...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »