Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT36Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri V. Sridharan, learned advocate for the appellants states that both the lower authorities have classified the impugned goods under heading 87.04 as "Truck" whereas the appellants seek classification under heading 87.01 as "Tractor". He produces Bills of Entries assessing identical goods imported by the appellants themselves at Mumbai and Chennai Custom Houses under heading 87.01 whereas the impugned goods under the present appeal have been assessed under heading 87.04 at Nhava Sheva Custom House. He further states that in other countries, such goods are classified under heading 87.01 and submits an e-mail dtd. 16/08/2004 to this effect. He states that the Automotive Research Association of India have certified the impugned goods to be tractors as also the registration certificates issued by the motor vehicle authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder. He submits illustration of the impugned goods (vide page 2) which, when coupled ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishnonics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT406Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal against the CCE (Appeals) having held that the Respondent should submit an application for remission of duty of Rs. 7 lakhs to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II. Who after satisfying himself about the fire incident, in the respondents factory on 8-1-1996, and ascertaining the goods lost in the accident, remit the duty; it was further ordered that if the said Commissioner is not satisfied and reject the permission applicable then a fresh notice of duty demand could be issued by Commissioner.2. Revenue seeks in the appeal that the CCE (Appeals) ought to have ordered that in the eventuality of remission of duty been granted the SCN would stand discharged but if the remission is disallowed then SCN will be clearly adjudicated since a fresh SCN, if issued after application of remission of duty been disallowed would be time barred.It is further contented in the grounds taken in appeal by Revenue that CCE (Appeals) ought to have ordered for revival of t...

Dinesh Trilokchand Chaudhary Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)BC265

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 3 Dinesh Trilokchand Choudhary being aggrieved by the order dated 5th May, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 9 in Original Application No. 282 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant for striking out his name from the proceedings on the ground that he was relieved as a guarantor in the year 1990 and therefore, he was absolved from the liability as a guarantor.2. I have heard Mr. A.R. Pandey for the appellant and Mr. Faizal Sayyad for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order. The original application was filed by the applicant ICICI Bank Limited for recovery of the amount of Rs. 11,52,12,670/- as on 15.8.2003 with further interest and other charges. The loan was sanctioned by the applicant Ban...

Sewari Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT546(Mum.)

In this appeal, the assessee pleads that the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming assessment of income under the head House Property" instead of Business Income" without properly appreciating the assessees submissions that the property has been given on leave and licence basis for a period of three years with a view to exploitation of business assets. It is prayed that the income be assessed under the head "business income" and be directed to be set off against .carried forward losses".The assessee-company is a Private Limited Company. During the year it gave its premises along with plant and machinery and other equipment on leave and licence basis for a period of three years to M/s. Apna Organics Private Limited with effect from 1-12-2000 at a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 per month. The assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs was not only for the use of factory premises, but also for the use of plant and machinery, furniture and fixture...

Nadeem Akhtar Saifee Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)1SOT268(Mum.)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19-2-2001 of the CIT (A)-I, Mumbai, upholding the disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,79,608 being 75% of total receipt of Rs. 2,39,477 claimed by the assessee under section 80RR of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98.The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and derives professional income from the work of music direction of films. For the assessment year under appeal, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80RR amounting to Rs. 1,79,608 on royalty income of Rs. 2,39,477. This was disallowed by the assessing officer in the assessment order observing as under: "(i) Form 10H were not filed in respect of the entire receipt of Rs. 2,39,477, which were not derived from the exercise of profession.(ii) There is no direct nexus between the royalty income received and the exercise of the profession.(iii) The appellant had exercised his profession when he first produced th...

Seamist Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Mum.)201

1. By this appeal, the assessee is challenging the CIT(A)'s order dated 21.11.2000, for the assessment year 1997-98. "1. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO in respect of addition of Rs. 11,06,475/-under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The appellant submits that provisions of Section 2(22)(e) do not apply to sum of Rs. 2,33,31,427/- received by the appellant from Silvasa Estates Pvt. limited in pursuance of understanding dated 9th February 1997 between the appellant company and the said Silvasa Estates Pvt. ltd. On following amongst other grounds: a) amount received by the appellant company was a deposit in terms of the aforesaid MOU dated 9th February 1997 and provisions of Section 2(22)(e) only apply to either a loan or advance and deposit is neither a loan or advance. b) Provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are deeming provisions and therefore have to be interpreted strictly." 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of letting out of bungalow for film shooting, etc. During...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)276ITR104(Mum.)

1. The assessee is a public limited company and derives income from hotel business. Seven grounds have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. The same are disposed of as follows. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 made under Rule 6B of IT Rules on the ground that expenditure on presentation articles which do not carry company logo was outside the scope of disallowance under Rule 6B." 3. After hearing both the parties, we hold that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee-company's own case for the asst. yr. 1988-89 vide order dt.9th Aug., 2000 wherein in paras 2 to 5, the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 stands deleted. The case of the assessee further stands supported by the following judgments :ITO v. French Dyes & Chemicals (I) (P) Ltd. (1985) 21 TTJ (Bom)(SB) 412 : (1984) 10 ITD 240 (Bom)(SB) "On the facts and in the circumstances...

Western Maharashtra Flourine Vs. Joint Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT572(Mum.)

Both these appeals are assessee's appeals for assessment year 1992-93 and assessment year 1994-95 directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai dated 7-3-2000 for assessment year 1992-93; and learned Commissioner (Appeals)-VII, Mumbai dated 20-12-1999 for assessment year 1994-95. As the issue involved in both the appeals is common, both these appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.The only effective ground raised for assessment year 1992-93 is regarding disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 73,25,451 in respect of assets purchased as per the agreement dated 25-11-1991 and the issue involved in, assessment year 1994-95 is disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 41,39,337 in respect of the same assets by following the order for assessment year 1992-93.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee purchased the business and manufacturing unit along with fixed assets...

Dy. Cit Vs. Unitherm Engineers (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)1SOT140(Mum.)

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow the deduction under section 80-IA on the service charges by holding that the same forms part and parcel of manufacturing activity ignoring the reasons given by the assessing officer in the assessment order for the conclusion that the service charges are not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and thus the decision of the CIT (A) is in contravention of the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the cases of Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579 (SC) Hindustan Lever Ltd. (239 ITR 297) and Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (237 ITR 589 (SC)".The assessee is manufacturing and selling engineering goods such as furnace, boiler, molding machines etc. Service charges of Rs. 32,26,774 were included in the total sales made by the assessee. Out of these, the assessee disallowed service charges of Rs. 28,52,243 received from M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. and M/s. ...

The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Indian Hotels Co. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The following question has been referred to me under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of difference of opinion between the Members, who heard the matter: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,11,807/- being disallowance on account of concessional rate of interest charges on advances made to the subsidiary company?" 2. The facts of the case are detailed in the proposed orders of the learned Members. All the same, for disposal of the question referred to me, it is necessary to set few of them, as per the following paragraphs.3. The assessee is a public limited company and derives income from hotel business. Several hotels in which the assessee is carrying on its business under the name "Taj" are not owned by the assessee, but operated by it under agreements in which the assessee receives operating fee. Out of total profits of RS. 10.87 crores, Rs. 6.6 crores accounts f...