Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Sk. Muneer Sk. Mannu Choudhary and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR821; (2008)215CTR(Bom)136; [2008]300ITR216(Bom)

Dabholkar N.V., J.1. All these are appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and since the facts are absolutely similar/identical and the same question of law is raised in all the appeals, those are being considered for disposal by this common judgment. (Henceforth we shall refer the appellant as 'assessee' for the sake of brevity and the respondent as 'department').2. A search was conducted by the authorities of the department in accordance with the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) in the premises of the appellants on 24.9.1998. Certain assets, cash, documents and books of accounts were seized from the premises of all the appellants. On 9.10.1998, the appellants requested Assistant Director of the Income Tax (Investigation) for inspection of the seized documents and xerox copies of some of those. Similar prayer was repeated on 3.3.1999 and 6.4.1999. On 5.7.1999, Assessing Officer directed t...

Chowgule and Co. Vs. Chowgule Employees Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR854; [2007(114)FLR336]; (2007)IIILLJ65Bom; 2007(4)MhLj241

Kanade V.M., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari or an order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 29/3/2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:FACTS:3. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Head Office at Goa. Respondent No. 1 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. One Mr. S.S. Naik was employed as an Electrician by the petitioner since 29/5/1966. The said Mr. Naik was working as a General Secretary of the Trade Union since 1973 till the time he was discharged in October, 1995.4. On 30/10/1995, the petitioner - Company discharged Mr. S.S. Naik as it felt it was not in the larger interest of the Company and all its workers to continue his services as it could not repose any confidence in him. In a detailed order of discharge which was issued by the C...

Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC289

1 As per fact on record the appellants factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 28.2.1997, who conducted various checks and verification. During the course of above exercise, goods totally valued at Rs. 6,90,029/- were found to be packed in boxes but not entered in statutory RG-I record. The officers seized the same under Panchnama dated 30.05.1997. On adjudication, the said goods were ultimately confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same, alongwith imposition of personal penalty. Appeal against the above Order of the Asst. Commissioner did not succeed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly I have heard ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned orders.3. Scrutiny of Panchnama dated 30.5.1997 shows that the appellant's representative, at the time of seizure itself disclosed that the glazed tiles in question are yet to be inspected and therefore, ...

Evergreen Engineering Co. Pvt. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC259

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 72, 73, 74, 84, 85, etc. and were availing the benefit of modvat credit. In respect of certain inputs they took credit of duty paid by the inputs manufacturer. However, subsequently the value of the inputs, as a result of negotiations by the appellants, was reduced.Accordingly, the appellants issued debit note to the supplier for an amount of Rs. 1,78,111/- in respect of inputs received during the period from December 2003 to August 2004. They were issued a show cause notice proposing to recover excess credit of Rs. 24,567/- on the ground that with the reduction in value of the inputs, corresponding duty paid by the inputs manufacturer also gets reduced to the above extent and the applicant was not entitled to avail the credit of the same. The said demand was confirmed against along with interest and penalty.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noticed the appellant's contention in para 2 of his order, which I...

Suzlon Windfarm Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 87,56,501 confirmed for the period 1999-2000 to 2002-2003, and penalty of Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 and penalty of an amount equal to service tax confirmed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944, we are of the view that a strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out by the applicants, as the very same issue as to whether operation and maintenance of power plant by the applicants herein amounts to rendering the services as Consulting engineer, is covered in their favour by the decision of the Tribunal in Rolls Royce Indus. Power (I) Ltd. v. Commr. of Cen.Ex. Vishakhapatnam . We, therefore, grant the prayer by dispensing with the pre-deposit and stay the recovery of the amounts pending the appeal....

Sanshu Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide impugned order, the authorities below have denied the benefit of modvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of the capital goods under the provisions of Rule 57R(1) on the ground that the said capital goods were used by them in the manufacture of goods on job-work basis which were cleared without payment of duty.2. As per facts on record the appellants are doing job-work of motor vehicle parts for M/s. Endurance Systems in terms of Provisions of Rule 57F(4). The appellant procured certain capital goods in the year 1999 and availed benefit of Modvat credit on the same. During July 1999 to July 2000 the appellant had used the said machine only for manufacture of goods on job-work basis which were cleared without payment of duty and as such the same were exempted and the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of modvat credit. On the other hand the appellants have contended that they had manufactured the goods themselves also, though the value of such manufactured ...

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Krishi Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR188

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs. 1,69,39,028/- and penalties of Rs. 100/- per day during which failure to pay tax continues under Section 76 and Rs. 500/- under Section 77 and penalty of an amount equal to the Service tax confirmed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the applicants herein were providing services of transporting of sugarcane to the factory of the sugar mill and thereafter transporting the sugar from the sugar mill.2. We find prima facie force in the submission of the ld. counsel for the applicants that the demands in the present order, adjudicating notices issued in March, 2003 and Nov. 2004, are barred by limitation for the reason that for the same activity as alleged to have been carried out by the applicants, a show cause notice was issued in Nov.2001 and adjudicated by an order dated 22.1.03 confirming demand of service tax for the period 16.11.97 t...

Sanchita Marine Products (P.) Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals, as also the cross objection filed by the assessee, are directed against the order dated 27th October, 2004, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2001-02. As these appeals and the cross objection pertain to the same assessee, involve common issues and were heard together, both of these appeals as well as cross objection are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.2. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly accepts that cross objection filed by the assessee does not contain any ground requiring independent adjudication, and that the grounds raised therein are covered by the appeals filed by the assessee or the assessing officer. The cross objection filed by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. We now take up the cross appeals.4. In the first ground of appeal, following grievances have been raised:...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oxemberg Fashions Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Mum.)737

1. The only issue arising in this appeal is, whether the loss of Rs. 29,43,695 on the sale of units can be disallowed.2. Briefly stated, the facts are, that the assessee is engaged in the business of washing of garments, weaving of fabrics and trading in garments. In the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased 13,99,541 units of K-30 equity growth scheme on 1st Oct., 2000 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,45,75,000 and the same were sold on the next date i.e., 10th Oct., 2000 for a consideration of Rs. 2,10,31,305.This resulted in short-term capital loss of Rs. 29,43,695. On account of holding of units for one day, the assessee also earned dividend income of Rs. 28,97,082. The assessee claimed dividend income as exempt under Section 10(33) of the IT Act, 1961 (Act). On the other hand, it declared short-term capital loss of Rs. 29,43,695, which was set off against the business income. The AO was of the view that the loss was nothing but an expenditure incurred to earn the...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Syncome Formulations (i) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)106ITD193(Mum.)

1. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961, to decide the following issue: Whether, on facts and in law, the assessee, while computing book profits under Section 115JA of the IT Act, 1961, is entitled to reduce the net profit as per P&L a/c by- (i) the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC actually computed under Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Sub-section (3) of Sub-section (3A) as the case may be (ii) the profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC computed with reference to book profits (after adjustments) in the manner specified in Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (3A)of Section 80HHC.2. The appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 2711/Mum/2003 in the case of M/s Syncom Formulations (I)(P) Ltd., is the basis for constituting this Special Bench. The said appeal was placed before Tribunal Mumbai 'H' Bench for hearing. In the course of hearing, the Bench found that the computation of ded...