Mumbai Court January 2003 Judgments

Cit Vs. Shatrunjay Diamonds

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN759(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.The revenue has filed this tax appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 28-9-2000 stating therein that the following substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,50,000 made by the assessing officer under section 40(A)(2)(b) of the Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment relevant for the purpose herein is assessment year 1988-89.3. The assessee is engaged in the diamond business and for that purpose it imports rough diamonds and after cutting and polishing exports the same.4. In the assessment year in question, the assessee had imported rough diamonds from M/s. Paras Gems, New York, which is a substantially interested concern within the mea...

F.A. Chasmawala Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Air

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported a consignment consisting of a front part of spectacle frame and ear pieces, claiming clearance in terms of an advance licence issued to it which is also entitled to exemption contained in notification 30/97. The departmental officers, on examination of the goods, concluded that there was nothing other than spectacle frames complete but separately packed. It also found the frame to contain lenses which, on examination by the Bombay University, Department of Chemical Technology, were certified to be a type CR 39, which is used for ophthalmic quality lens. Notice issued proposing confiscation of these goods under Clauses (d), (m) and (o) of Section 111 of the Act and proposing penalty. The Commissioner passed orders confirming confiscation under Clause (d), (m) and (o) of Section 111, permitting redemption of the goods and imposing penalty on the importer, denying the benefit of the exemption. The appeal is against that order.2. The counsel for the appellant has...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89ITD191(Mum.)

2. There is only one ground raised in this appeal. It relates to interpretation of the provisions of the Section 115J(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case in brief are as follows.3. For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessee was originally assessed to an income of Rs. 39,39,228, after allowing deduction for the brought forward unabsorbed investment allowance of Rs. 54,76,236.It was subsequently found that the income assessable under Section 115J was Rs. 47,56,772. The assessment was therefore, rectified by bringing to tax the amount of Rs. 47,56,772. The Assessing Officer also held that in view of provisions of Section 115J(2), there was no unabsorbed investment allowance to be carried forward, as the entire unabsorbed investment allowance brought forward from earlier years amounting to Rs. 54,76,276 got adjusted against the assessee's income as computed under normal provisions of the Income-tax Act. He held that unabsorbed investment allowance will not be carried ...

indo Sohottle Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR775

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard Counsel on both sides. Rule, returnableforthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent,the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this petition, the Petitioners havechallenged the order of CEGAT dated 2.11.2002(Exhibit A12 to the petition) in so far as it seeksto confirm its earlier order dated 6th March, 2000and hold that the reclassification of the goodsmanufactured by the Petitioners under Chapter Heading8409 of Central Excise Tariff would be applicablefrom the date of show cause notice dated 23.10.1990.In this petition, the Petitioners do not dispute thatthe goods manufactured by them are classifiable underChapter sub heading 8409. But, the grievance is thatafter the issuance of the show cause notice dated23.10.1990 the Respondents have approved theclassification of the goods manufactured by thePetitioners under Chapter sub heading 7318.90 of theCentral Excise Tariff and, therefore, during thevalidity of those approved classification lists, theTribu...

Shri Rajesh Baburao Mudhale Vs. Shri M.N. Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)828; 2003(3)MhLj306

S.S. Parkar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 21/2/2002 passed against him under the provision of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996).2. Pursuant to the aforesaid detention order the petitioner was taken into custody on 25/2/2002. The said order was passed on the basis of two crimes registered against the detenu and two in-camera statements. The first C.R. pertains to the incident which took place on 13/11/2001 being C.R. No. 498 of 2001 registered at Vakola Police Station on the complaint of one Rajesh Tiwari for the offences under Sections 171, 420 and 34 of IPC. The second C.R. was registered in respect of the incident which took place on 24/11/2001 being C.R. No. 510 of 2001 registered by the same police station for offences under Sections 399, 402 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Arms Act i.e. ...

P and O Australia Ports Pty Limited and ors. Vs. Board of Trustees, Jn ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR733; 2004(1)CTLJ279(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj717

ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the global tender notice inviting pre-qualification bids for the redevelopment of the Bulk Terminal into a Container Terminal at Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNP) on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis for a licence period of 30 years, Clause 1.3 of the said tender notice disqualifies the petitioners and their associates and interconnected companies to participate in the bid. The petitioners are seeking direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) to delete Clause 1.3 and permit the petitioners and their associates or interconnected companies to participate in the bid. In the alternative a direction is sought that the terms and conditions of the new bid for conversion of the existing bulk terminal into a container terminal should be no different from the terms and conditions on which the petitioners are required to op...

Siyaka Marong Abdoulaya Vs. Mr. J.L. Pandey, Inspector of Customs (P) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)108; 2003BomCR(Cri)1826

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellant who is the only surviving person from the row of culprits who happened to be concerned with the allegation of the prosecution of conspiracy for committing the offence punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience), is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order convicting the sentencing him passed by Special Judge in N.D.P.S. SPL. Case No. 334 of 1996 whereby he has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 lacs, in default to undergo RI for one year. 2. Some facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the prosecution case. The officers of N.C.B. received certain information and in context with the said information they intercepted Ms. Beatrice Rhoda and Camara Mamadi (both now deceased) on 27.4.96 at 6.35 a...

Sayed Mumtaz Ali, Deputy Station Manager Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Thr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR328

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. The petitioner in this case, amongst others, had challenged reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 7700/- to Rs. 7300/- by filing original application No. 2089 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal' in short). The Tribunal, while deciding the case of the petitioner by order dated 21st September, 2001, set aside the recovery directed against the petitioner, but turned down the challenge to the reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 7700/- to Rs. 7300/- without giving any reason. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner in this behalf by one sentence order saying, 'While upholding the action of the respondents in refixing the applicants pay keeping in view the instructions governing the same, I direct that the recovery of amount of Rs. 53,325/- which represents the amount paid to him for the higher responsibility shouldered during 1978-81 be set aside.' Reading of t...

Siti Cable Network Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Mum.)106

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-XI, Mumbai passed on 6th Feb, 2002, in respect of asst. yr. 1998-99.2. In this Case assessee-company is carrying on the business of providing cable TV services throughout India. Cable channel run and owned by assessee-company is called 'Siti Cable'. The appellant gets subscriptions from cable operators using the appellants network on the basis of connectivity declared by the cable operators to TV homes.There is agreement between the appellant and the cable operators (Franchisee company) to this effect. The appellant also redistributes the signal of satellite TV channel (pay channels and free to air channels) The appellant-company pays subscription charges to pay TV channels on the basis of connectivity declared by the cable operators, which they accept and on the same basis the assessee has been getting the subscription money from the cable operators. The appellant-company's activities are spread over 43 cities in Ind...

A.P. Moller, Maersk Agency India Vs. Dcit, Special Range 31

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89ITD563(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(Appeals) XVII, Bombay, and relates to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The solitary ground taken in this appeal relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 4,43,58,238 towards feeder charges. This is also known as slot fee. One additional ground was raised by the learned counsel in regard to the addition made by the assessing officer connected with the ancillary charges amounting to Rs. 6,60,47,066.3. Apropos the ancillary charges, assessee did not dispute the addition before the CIT(A). For the first time issue was raised before us. It was stated to be a legal issue. After hearing learned departmental representative, we permit the assessee to raise this issue before the Tribunal.4. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. Shri F.V. Irani, learned counsel for the assessee, appeared before us. Our attention was invited on Article 9 of the Convention Betwee...