Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STT25

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs. 3,58,344/- and penalty of equal amount is allowed as the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case on the ground that although the order of the Assistant Commissioner dealt with the issue as to whether the applicants are liable to pay Service tax at receiver of Consulting Engineer Services (which proceedings were dropped by him), in review, the Commissioner has proceeded to hold that they are liable to pay Service tax on the ground that they have received the services of Management Consultant, which is prima facie not permissible in view of the fact that the review order is required to be confined to point arising out of the order under review and also for the reason that for the period prior to 16-8-2002, the recipient of services is not liable to pay Service tax (the period is from 1-4-2001 to 31-12-2002) and also for the reason that prima facie the applicant cannot be considered as an agent of the foreign s...

Kamal Photo Studio and Colour Lab, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR548

1. In these cases, by Stay Order No. S/506-508/WZB/2005 C.III dated 7.10.2005, stay was granted after noting that the assessee had paid the entire service tax amount along with 25% of the penalty amount.Subsequently, it was noted by the Bench that the appeals were not in the proper format and directions were issued for filing of fresh appeals by an officer duly authorized by the company and the defects have now been rectified. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing the fresh appeals in the proper format. The appeals are now fixed for hearing on 12.3.07....

indus theco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case Cenvat Credit of Rs. 9,46,318/- taken on capital goods which was subsequently exported as such has been disallowed and ordered to be paid back as per the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 which provides for payment of an amount equal to credit availed in respect of inputs or capital goods which are removed as such from the factory and penalty of equal amount has been imposed.2. I have heard both sides and find force in the submission of the appellants that they were not required to pay pack the credit availed in the light of the CBEC circular dated 31-12-96 issued in the context of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the reason that even in the Rules as they stood, during the prior period (the period in dispute in the present case is subsequent to the introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002), there was no provision for paying back the amount equal to credit availed in respect of inputs cleared as such. Further, even if the appellants ha...

icici Limited Vs. the Jt. Commr. of Income Tax, Spl.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are two appeals by the assessee and the department against the order of the CIT(A) relating to AY 95-96.Similar issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are disposed off by this single order.2. First we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3536/Mum/99: 3. As many as 30 grounds of appeal have been taken by the assessee while filing the appeal on 25.6.99. Thereafter the assessee has filed summarized grounds of appeal vide letter dated 12.5.2006 which are 18 in number. The assessee; has also filed a chart of grounds wherein the dispute, amount, para No., and page No. along with the reasons given by the AO and the CIT(A) have been mentioned. In remarks column the comments/contentions along with citation have been mentioned and it has been further clarified that some of the issues are covered either in favour of the assessee or in favour of the department. Some of the grounds are not pressed and in remarks column it has b...

J.M. Shares and Stock Brokers Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109ITD329(Mum.)

1. These cross-appeals by the assessee as well as Revenue which have been heard together are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. Ground No. 1 arising from the appeal of assessee relates to disallowance of Rs. 2 lacs being the payment on account of stamp duty to registrar for increase in authorized capital while the ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 68,096 under Section 35D of the IT Act, 1961 (Act). These grounds have not been pressed before us and, therefore, the same are being dismissed as "not pressed".3. Ground No. 3 in assessee's appeal as well as ground No. 1 in the Revenue's appeal relate to the claim of the assessee for depreciation on leased assets. As per the Revenue's appeal, the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on the leased assets while as per the assessee's appeal, the learned CIT(A) should have allowed the depreciation on the entire cost as against 50 per cent of the cost allowed by the learned CIT(A). Further, CIT(A) s...

Dy. Cit Vs. D.B.S. Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals arise from the order dated 22-2-1995 of Commissioner (Appeals) - XXXIII, Mumbai and are disposed off by this common order as under: 2. The first issue which is common for both the appeals pertains to the determination of assessee's income chargeable to tax and the head of income under which it can be so charged, on transfer by the assessee- company's business of entire credit card operations to City bank NA during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.Ground No. 1 raised by the department and relevant to this issue is as A under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in his decision that the applicant must have been taken to have transferred the intangible assets of its credit card business to Citibank for a consideration of Rs. 5,61,10,725 (15 lakhs + 3,46,10,725 + 2 crores) and these assets should be treated as long-term assets and long-term capital gains should be accord...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mukund Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD231(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1992-93 are directed against the order of CIT(A). In exercise of the powers vested under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961, the President of the Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to decide the following question arising in the case of the present assessee: Whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of 1/99th of the sum of Rs. 2,04,00,000 being proportionate rent in respect of amortization of payment for acquisition of leasehold rights? 2. The Hon'ble President has referred the other grounds raised in this appeal by the Revenue as well as the assessee for decision thereof and the entire appeals are referred to the Special Bench for disposal. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,04,137 on account of provision for doubtful debts.The learned Counsel for the assessee fair...

Shri Gokuldas Rama Gaude, Shri Bhanu Rama Gaude, Smt. Meena Bhanu Gaud ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR463

S.K. Shah, J.1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this revision application is taken up for final disposal. 2. This revision challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Bicholim in Execution Application No. 3/05/A whereby the objection to the execution of the decree was raised. The respondents obtained the decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 5.7.1996. By this decree, the applicants herein are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 50/1 of Village Sonus Vonvoliem. 3. The undisputed facts are that by Conveyance dated 6.10.1995, the suit land was purchased by the applicants from the original landlord. It is, thereafter, that they entered into the suit agreement of sale with the respondent for selling the suit property for consideration. Eventually, the decree was passed against the applicants. That decree has become final It is, therea...

Francis Xavier Salemao S/O David Salemao Vs. State Through the Public ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007BomCR(Cri)847

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884(Act, for short) for having been found in possession of 9 non electrical detonators and 31 electrical detonators(item Nos. 25 to 28), 26 percussion caps(item Nos. 20 and 24) of panchanama Exh.C12 which are explosives as defined under Section 4(d) of the Act. 2. The accused was charged and tried under Sections 3, 5 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in addition to Section 9B(1)(a) and (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, with the allegation that at 13.00 hours on 1412001, PSI Banudas Dessai/PW14 who at the relevant time was attached to Vasco Police Station had received reliable information that the accused was in possession of illegal fire arms and consequent to the said information the house of the accused was raided and the accused was found with a rifle, revolver, live cartridges, empty cartridges, bull...

Union of India (Uoi) Through T.C. Subramanian, Income Tax Officer Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)79; [2008]297ITR315(Bom)

J.H. Bhatia, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. V. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the applicant - Union of India. None appeared for the respondents.2. Perused relevant documents and the impugned order, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. 3. Applicants case in brief is that, the respondent no.1 is a partnership firm and respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are its partners and they were in charge and responsible to the accused no.1 for the conduct of its business. It was alleged by the Income Tax Department that the accused and its partners had concealed and evaded income to the tune of Rs.2,34,265/-and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 276-C(1)(i) and 277(i) read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, during the year 1979-80. The Income Tax Officer, after obtaining sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed complaint against the respondents / accused.4. At the outset, it may be stated that respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not serv...