Mumbai Court May 2002 Judgments

Ravindra K. Mariwala Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)86ITD35(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) IX, Mumbai.2. By way of ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order. However, at the time of hearing before us, this ground of appeal was not pressed. Accordingly, this ground is rejected.3. Ground No. 2 is against the denial of deduction under Section 54F claimed by the assessee at Rs. 63,17,795. Ground No. 3 is only an argument in support of ground No. 2 whereby the assessee contends that the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on a ground totally different than the ground taken by the AO, that too, without giving an opportunity to the assessee for meeting that new ground. Ground No. 4 is against the action of the AO whereby the AO has set off long-term capital loss against long-term capital gains, while the assessee has set off the long-term capital loss against short-term capital gains.4. Since all the above three grounds are intricately connected with each other, they are being...

international Shipping Agency Vs. Cc (G)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(104)LC1041Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs who has suspended the CHA licence of the appellants under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.2. The appellants are a sole proprietory concern of Shri Chandrashekar R. Sukhla carrying on business of Custom House Clearing Agents. Their licence was earlier suspended under Regulation 21(2) by order No.18/2000 dated 21.6.00 on the grounds that (a) they were using the CHA licence of another firm viz. M/s. D.H. Patkar & Sons (b) that they were illegally diverting goods imported duty free under DEEC scheme for sale in the domestic market.For the reason set out in Clause (b) above, a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- was imposed on Shri C.R. Shukla by the adjudication order dated 13.12.1999 which was set aside by Tribunal's order dated 27.9.2000 remanding the case for de novo adjudication with certain direction. The suspension order dated 18/2000 was also set aside by Tribunal's order No. ...

Hindustan Conductors Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range-1

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

"Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, deduction on account of depreciation and investment allowances should be allowed for the year under consideration only to the extent it was necessary to reduce the income to the level of the income computed Under Section 115J and consequently whether the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT (A) or interpretation of the provision of the Section 115J(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be set aside." 2. We accordingly, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 255(4) of the Act refer this point to the Hon'ble President Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for necessary action....

Everlon Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC525Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the stay for some time in transpired that the appeal could be decided on the short point of proceeding beyond the show cause notice. Therefore with consent of both sides and waiver of pre-deposit and after hearing both sides the following order is passed. "Whereas on scrutiny of RT 12 for June 1995, it is noticed that M/s. Everlon Synthetics Ltd., Mota Pondha has taken credit of Rs. 95255/- vide RG 23A part II Eno. 593 dated 12-6-1995. The amount of Rs. 95,255/- pertains to the credit taken on paper tube/oil etc., Since the credit on paper tube/oil etc., are not admissible since the same are not coming under the definition of inputs the amount of Rs. 95,255/- being the credit taken as above are not admissible to them and is recoverable from them under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, 1944". "It is submitted that in the captioned show cause cum demand notice, the superintendent of Central Excise has alleged fraud on the part of the assessee. It is therefore submitted...

Mukand Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT494Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has arisen in an appeal filed by the applicants against an order of the Commissioner sotting aside an earlier order of refund of service tax passed by the lower authority and seeking to recover the amount on the ground of unjust enrichment.2. Ld. Counsel for the applicants, reiterating the grounds of stay application, submits that the impugned order is erroneous because, according to the applicants, the incidence of duty had, in fact, not been passed on to their customer on account of subsequent credit not having been issued to the latter Ld. Counsel in this connection relies on the decision of this Tribunal in L & T Sargent & Lundy Ltd. v. CCE, VadodaraThermon Heat Tracers Ltd. v. CCE, Pune [2001 (132) E.L.T. 455 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 85]. Ld. Counsel pleads strong prima facie case on the strength of the cited case law. Ld. Counsel also pleads financial hardship and invites our a...

Bevit Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT311Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein manufacture pharmaceutical products, in the price-lists for which a discount of 15% on sales to chief distributors and 10% on sales to other distributors to be deducted in arriving at the assessable value of their products, was claimed. The department was of the view that there was no distinction between the chief distributors and any other distributor and proposed to limit the discount to 10%. The proposal in the show cause notice issued to the appellants in this regard was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner who also imposed a penalty upon the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order. Hence this appeal.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits on the basis of Tribunal's Order No. CI/1851/99-WZB, dated 19-7-1999. Therefore we heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. We find that in the above mentioned final order, in the case of the same assessee, the Tribunal has held that there is no distinction between the chi...

R.B. Patil Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ55CAT

1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for direction to the respondents to count applicant's seniority from the date of his initial appointment, i.e.w.e.f. 22.1.1981 in the grade of LDC, accordingly, modify the seniority list as on 1.4.1994 and 1.2.1996 circulated vide letter dated 14.7.93 and 12.2.1996 respectively, promote the applicant to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 12.2.1996 when his juniors, superseding him were promoted with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant claims that he was appointed as Labourer in temporary capacity with the office of Director of Civil Supplies and Disposal w.e.f. 20.4.1977, was confirmed vide order dated 27.11.1979. On acquiring qualification of S.S.C. in the year 1978, being eligible to be promoted as Lower Division Clerk, the respondents conducted a departmental competitive examination in the year 1980, the applicant appeared in the said examination, competed with the nominees of Employme...

Miss Anjali Goel Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)85ITD27(Mum.)

1. The assessee is in appeal arising out of the order of CIT(A) XII, Mumbai, dt. 28th Dec., 1993. The issue raised as per grounds of appeal is that the appellant had not incurred any cost for acquisition of the beneficial interest being settled for her benefit by the settlor on assignment of beneficial interest in the trust, therefore, the receipt of Rs. 9,91,000 was not chargeable to tax and learned CIT(A) has also erred in directing to compute capital gains by taking cost of acquisition at Rs. 12,850.2. As per the assessment order passed under Section 143(3), dt. 18th March, 1993, the AO has found that the assessee has credited a sum of Rs. 9,91,000 in her capital account being an assignment of beneficial interest in M/s Goel Family Trust. The assessee has claimed that this amount was not taxable because there was no cost of acquisition: The AO has discussed various case laws in this regard and held that the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act were attracted and also liable to be...

Harsha Bhogle Vs. Assessing Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)86ITD714(Mum.)

This appeal of the assessee has been directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXXV, Mumbai, dated 6-10-2000 for the assessment year 1997-98.The grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee reads as follows : (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the Assessing Officer's rejection of the Appellant's claim under Section 80RR on the footing that the Appellant's case does not fall within the ken of Section 80RR. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in this connection in holding that the Appellant is not an 'artist' as postulated in Section 80RR. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in this connection in lending a restrictive and narrow meaning to the word 'artist' as being confined to creative arts, and in any event, grossly erred in holding...

Cce Vs. Enpee Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC641

1. The main contention raised in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is that the Customer of the respondent should be treated as a related person and assessment should have been made on that basis. The above issue is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Biscuit Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna against the contention raised by the appellant before us. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed....