Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Ramnord Research Laboratories Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99ITD753(Mum.)

1. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, the same are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience. The only issue involved in these appeals is whether the 1st and IInd floors of "Ramnord Building" situated at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, given on leave and licence basis to Citibank could be considered as an asset chargeable to wealth-tax under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing of films since 1948. The assessee declared net wealth of Rs. 11,07,682 for the assessment year 1997-98 and Rs. 8,30,800 for the assessment year 1998-99. The property at Worli, Mumbai, was being used earlier for its business but due to lull in business, 1st and End floors of the property was given on leave and licence basis to Citibank. In the return, the assessee gave the following note: "The building named "Ramnord" at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumba...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Hinditron Services (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99ITD479(Mum.)

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 61,807 without appreciating the facts that this expense was not for business purpose and was not covered by limits prescribed under Rule 6B. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to tax the amount of Rs. 14,00,000 received on termination of agency as capital receipt. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that by resources transfer agreement, the assessee continued the business in new set up, and the income earning apparatus remain intact. There was no unabsorbed stock to the business of the assessee as income increased next year. The loss because of loss of agency commission was a loss due to ordinary incident in the course of business (Eillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT 53 ITR 283 and also Kattlewell Bullen Co. Ltd. v. CIT - 53 ITR 261). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ...

Joint Official Liquidator of Bank Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)6SOT391(Mum.)

The three issues that we are required to adjudicate in this appeal are : "(a) whether or not the provisions of section 115A of the Income Tax Act will apply to a case where a non-resident has placed deposits with Indian branch of a foreign bank; (b) whether or not the levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act can be made when entire income of the non-resident assessee was liable to the deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act; and (c) whether or not the interest paid by Indian branch of a foreign bank to the non-resident assessee before us, on the facts of this case, will qualify for exemption under section 10(15)(iv)(1a) of the Act." Out of the three issues identified above, the first two issues emerge out of the grievances raised by the assessee, as set out in the memorandum of appeal, which are as follows: "The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in computing the tax on the interest income at the rate...

Twenty First Century Wire Rods Limited Vs. the Administrator and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR408; 2006(1)BomCR539; (2005)107BOMLR1220

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the demand notice dt.22.09.03 issued by the respondent No. 3 and the impugned order dt.2.3.04 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Appeal by which the demand issued by Respondent No. 3 has been confirmed. Some of the material facts pertaining to the present petition are briefly enumerated as under:2. On 27.12.01, respondents gave a sanction in principle of HT load of 4000 KVA to the petitioners company situated at Village Parzai and Khadoli viz., Unit No. 1 and 2 at Silvassa. On 11.11.02 an agreement was executed by and between the petitioners and the respondents for the aforesaid supply of electricity on the various terms and conditions which are specified therein. On 13.11.02, the power connection was activated and the power was released in favour of the petitioners. On 19.12.02, the respondents raised a demand for the sum of Rs. 56,03,815.50 in so far as Unit No. 1 of the Petitioners at Village Parzai was situat...

Shri Vishnu Maruti Ghosale, Vs. the Appropriate Authority (Under Incom ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1230; (2006)200CTR(Bom)454; [2006]285ITR459(Bom); 2006(1)MhLj859

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated February 23, 1995, wherein, the appropriate authority has ordered pre-emptive purchase of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). According to the petitioners the findings recorded in the impugned order that the apparent consideration has been undervalued by 15% or more than the fair market value is wholly erroneous because, firstly, the sale instance property ('SIP' for short) referred to in the impugned order is not comparable and secondly, even on the basis of the price of the SIP it is not established that the alleged under valuation exceeds 15% or more than the fair market value and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of a open plot of land bearing Survey No. 113 admeasuring 3 hectares and 93 acres situated at Village ...

Tulsabai W/O Narayanrao Deshpande (Died) Through L.R. Madhavrao Naraya ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR144; 2006(2)MhLj219

Vasanti A. Naik, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal involves two important questions, one regarding the applicability of Section 14(1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the other about interpretation of a document called Tamliknama.2. The facts giving rise to the controversy in question are narrated as under.The appellant is the legal heir of plaintiff Tulsabai. Plaintiff Tulsabai filed Special Civil Suit No. 94 of 1972 for declaration of right of ownership and for recovery of possession of land S. No. 100/B, commonly known as Palsa Babat admeasuring 7 acres 17 gts. and land S. No. 139 admeasuring 35 acres 4 gts. situated at Barahalli, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded.3. According to the plaintiff, one Gangadharrao Deshpande was the owner and possessor of the suit lands. That Gangadharrao Deshpande died 65 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving behind him his wife Haranabai and one daughter Tulsabai - the plaintiff. That after the death of Gangadharrao, his wife Harana...

Kundil Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeals arise out of two separate adjudication orders involving identical issues. In appeal No. E/3920/99-Mum. the issue relates to re-determination of actual production and duty liability of the appellants who are manufacturers of Mild Steel Ingots covered by the provisions of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 during the period 20.3.1998 to 31.8.1998 and 1st April 1998 to 30.11.1998 which has been denied on the ground that during the two different periods involved in 1997-98 and 1998-99, the assessees had discharged duty liability as per Rule 96ZO(3) and therefore could not switch over to payment of duty under Sub-Section (4) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Actual production basis).2. Appeal No. E/2246/03 is against the confirmation of duty of Rs. 97,62,588/- (Rupees Ninety seven lakhs sixty two thousand five hundred eighty eight only) raised in five show cause notices consequent to determination of Actual...

Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 4,92,849/- has been confirmed against the appellants for the period March 99 to March 2003 on the ground that while arriving at the assessable value of the goods manufactured on job work basis, certain elements of cost have not been taken into account. During adjudication, the appellants took a stand that while taking the cost of raw materials, they have also taken into account the credit of duty paid on the said inputs, which according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. reported in 2000 (112) ELT 523 (SC) is not required to be taken. If the above element is adjusted, the assessable value of the goods would go down. The above submission has not been accepted by the lower authorities.2. After hearing the Ld. DR, we find that the entire valuation gets open with the revenue contesting the same and. As such, assessable value of the goods has to be arrived at after taking into consideration, the entire facts of the case and not only...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dheerajlal A. Kansara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's order 2005 (186) E.L.T. 240 (Tri. Mum.) in referring to the wrong Tariff sub-heading and the wrong notification is allowed as we are satisfied that the submission that the Tribunal has incorrectly recorded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods manufactured by the respondents fall under CET sub-heading 7409.20 (he has held that the goods fall under Chapter Heading 74.03) and that the Tribunal has wrongly referred to Serial No. 175 of the Table to the Notification No.8/98-C.E., while the relevant notification is Notification No.4/97-C.E. is correct. We, therefore, correct mistakes occurring in the final order by substituting Chapter Heading 74.03 for Chapter Sub-heading 7409.20 as recorded in the opening paragraph of the order and by substituting the reference to the notification as No. 4/97 instead of Notification No. 8/98. The application is hereby allowed....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Hem Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal. When the matter was called nobody appeared for the respondent. Heard ld. DR.2. The respondent are an assessee engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, i.e. embroidery on cotton and art silk fabric falling under Heading 58.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. The assessee was paying Central Excise duty under Rule 96 ZH of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by taking metre length of the machines as 13.90 metres as declared in their application for permission to avail special procedure. They were 2 rollers on each machines and upon measuring the distance between first and last needles of the lower roller and upper roller of the machine the length worked out to 13.90 mtrs in respect of each roller resulting in payment of duty to the extent of 1/2 metre length of each embroidery machine. Accordingly show cause notice was issued for evading duty for the period 12-3-98 to 31-3-98 and imposition of penalty. The notice was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. In app...