Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Maha Gujarat Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides, we find that the duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the sole ground that for a particular period he paid less amount of duty than what was required to be paid in accordance with the annual capacity of production fixed by the Commissioner without neutralizing the same against the admitted excess payment for the next quarter.2. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner could have taken in account the total duty paid, which, if considered, would not result in short payment of duty. As such the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case so as to allow the stay petition unconditionally. We order accordingly....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hico Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(194)ELT157Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai, has filed this application for rectification of mistake allegedly crept in, in an Order dated 20-9-2005 vide Order No. M/1152/WZB/2005/C-I (Referral Order) passed by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench to answer the reference made by the Regular Bench over a conflicting issue as there were two divergent views in the case of Goodluck Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Special Steels Ltd. respectively. Accordingly, the Larger Bench has heard the matter at length and answered the reference considering the material on record. The grouse of the Department in this application is that some of the decisions citied by them were not considered by the Larger Bench; as such, it seeks indulgence of this Bench to rectify such an alleged mistake in the reference order by way of an amendment.2. Now the point for determination is whether this petition (ROM)...

Roborant Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, 3(3)(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT250(Mum.)

The appeals of the assessee arise out of the CWT(A)'s separate orders dated under section 80-0/304 and 29-7-2004 for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively.The grounds in both the appeals are identical except an additional ground No. 7 for the assessment year 1999-2000. Therefore, grounds of appeal in assessment year 1999-2000 are reproduced below : 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment of the property at Colaba Kartar Bhavan Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. (the Kartar Bhavan property) as being liable to tax under the Act.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessing officer had validly initiated the proceedings under section 17 of the Act.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the Kartar Bhavan Property belonged to the Appellant and was liable to wealth-tax in its hands.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant was only a shareholder in the society and rights with respect to the ...

Dy. Cit Vs. Movies Stunt Artists Association

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT204(Mum.)

The only effective ground of objection urged by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that assessee is not a defaulter within the meaning of section 201(1) and 201(IA) of the Income Tax Act and assessee is not liable to deduct tax as per the provisions of section 194J.The assessee is an association of Stunt Artists and provide the services of such artists to the producers of the films. For the services rendered, ie., for making the artists available as dupes to the producers of the films, the bills are raised by the association.Thereafter, the producers make the payment to the association and association in turn pays the same to the artists. The assessing officer held that tax has not deducted at the time of making the payment in accordance with section 194J. As the tax was not deducted assessee is liable to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which tax deducted on the date of the order. ...

Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)713

1. These two appeals pertain to the same assessee, involve common issues and were heard together. As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2.We will first take up ITA No. 4128/Mumbai/2003, i.e., assessee's appeal for the asst. yr. 1990-91.3. By way of this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grievances : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the additional ground raised is academic. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that of the thirty odd banks, the appellant-bank also features as one where charges have been specified. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act in respect of Rs. 37,79,100 being profit on sale of Government Securities. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the lear...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sms India Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT424(Mum.)

These appeals arising out of consolidated order dated 12-6-2002 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai for assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99, involve common issues and belong to the same assessee and, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record."1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee was a valid return.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case while deleting the penalty under section 271C, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the revised return was filed by the assessee after the default in deduction of tax at source was detected and brought to the notice of the assessee by the assessing officer.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ca...

Assistant Director of Income Tax Vs. Green Emirate Shipping and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)100ITD203(Mum.)

1. The only grievance raised by the Revenue in this appeal is as follows : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the benefit of DTAA merely on production of the xerox copy of the tax residency certificate issued by the Ministry of Finance and Industry in UAE without appreciating the fact that the assessee-company failed to produce any evidence that it was liable to pay taxes or paying taxes in UAE and that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement did not apply to any person where the income was not liable to be taxed twice by the existing laws of both the Contracting States.2. The short factual matrix, in which this issue arises, is this. The assessee is a shipping line based in United Arab Emirates. In the relevant previous year, the assessee had a taxable income of Rs. 28,35,628 from shipping operations. The assessee's claim was that in terms of Article 8 of the Indo-UAE DTAA [(1994) 205 I...

Cybertech Systems and Software Ltd. Vs. Assistant Cit, Range 8(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)7SOT230(Mum.)

These cross-appeals arise out of the order dated 29-3-2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VIII, Mumbai for the assessment year 2000-01.The first ground in the assessee's appeal questions the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. We have heard both the sides and have carefully gone through the records. The return of income for the assessment year under consideration was processed under section 143(i) of the Act and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. Subsequently, the assessing officer was of the opinion that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the light of the fact that in the preceding assessment year there was a finding that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Act. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on the ground that the income had escaped assessment in terms of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act. In respect ...

Gripwell Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99ITD368(Mum.)

1. Since the issue in both the appeals is the same, both the appeals are heard and disposed off by this common order. 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, by holding that the Capital Gain of Rs. 1,28,12,543 on sale of properties at Vartej plant is taxable in assessment year 1999-2000 and accordingly has erred in confirming the findings given by the Assessing Officer. 1.1 Your Appellant submits that as per provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, any transaction involving the allowing of possession of any immovable property to be taken or retain in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a "transfer" in relation to capital asset and accordingly the provisions of Section 45 of Income-tax Act, 1961 shall apply. Thus, it is submitted that in view of definition of transfer, capital gain is to be levied on sale of property on giving possession of the property though final sale...

The A.C.i.T., Special Range 15 Vs. Eastern International Hotels

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The departmental appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection arise from the order dated 28.3.2001 of CIT(A)-XLIV, Mumbai and are disposed of by this common order as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to include interest receipt while calculating the deduction Under Section 80HHD The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is entitled to deduction Under Section 80HHD of the IT Act. The AO computed allowable deduction in the following manner: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Amount(Rs.)Total Turnover 64,34,23,313/-Foreign Exchange earinings 28,53,58,302/-Total assessed business income 8,81,96,788/-(Less) Interest income 19,92,561/-Assessed business income for the purposes ofdeduction Under Section 8HHD 8,62,04,227/-Deduction Under Section 80HHD = ---------------------------------------------------- Deduction % 50% of the above 1,91,15,791/- Balance 50% to the extent of reserve created of Rs. 1,96,00,000/- 1,91,15...