Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR369; 2009(111)BomLR1529; (2009)224CTR(Bom)197; [2009]17STJ255; 2009[14]STR289; [2009]19STT408; (2009)22VST293(Bom)
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The 1st petitioner is the Indian National Ship Owners' Association which is registered as a nonprofit making company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Members of the 1st petitioner are owners of Indian Flag Vessels. The Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) is one of its members. The 2nd petitioner is also a member of the 1st petitioner. He is a shareholder of a Member Company of the 1st petitioner.2. The 1st respondent is the nodal Ministry in-charge of all matters and policies relating to Revenue. Respondent 2 is an apex body functioning under the control of respondent 1 that regulates all policy decisions relating to Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax matters. One of the functions of the 2nd respondent is to issue clarifications under Section 378 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Respondent 3 is the Commissioner of Service Tax and Respondent 4 is the Additional Commissioner (Technical) Service Tax, Mumbai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1965]56ITR114(Bom)
Tambe, J.1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner, National Rayon Corporation Ltd., a public limited company, seeks to get quashed by a writ of certiorari the order made by the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I(3), Bombay, the respondent hereto, on the 29th of January, 1963, in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. Facts in brief are : In the assessment year 1956-57, the previous year being calendar year 1955, the income-tax of the assessee-company on its total income was computed at nil and the previous loss was ordered to be carried forward. The assessment order for the assessment year 1956-57 was made on February 17, 1958. In the previous year relating to the assessment year 1956-57, however the petitioner-company had declared dividends amounting to Rs. 15,77,340 on its ordinary subscribed share capital of Rs. 1,57,71,400. The declared divide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1.1 Heard both sides. The dispute in the present appeal involves, interalia, the correct classification of 'Calcined China Clay'. The appellants sought to classify the said calcined China Clay in the declaration filed by them under chapter heading 26.06. The Appellants during the course of adjudication proceedings alternatively claimed classification of the said Calcined China Clay under chapter heading 25.05. By the impugned order, the respondent has classified the said calcined china clay under chapter sub heading 3824.20.1.2 the appellants procure raw 'kaolin' in its ore form, which is a naturally occurring hydrated aluminium silicate. This raw kaolin is crushed and fired in klin which is heated to a temperature of about 1200 degree C. This process of calcinations removes excess water. The material emerging from the klin is in lumpy form which is crushed and agglomerated. The particles are then separated as per required size.2.1 Note 2 to chapter 25 as introduce on 1st March 1986, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. 2. The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are claiming a writ, order or direction declaring clause (zzzzv) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010 as ultravires the Constitution of India, null, void and of no legal affect. It is prayed that the said provision be struck down as violative of the mandate of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246, 265, 300A and 366(29A)(f) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the relief restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the said provision directly or indirectly, so also, levying or attempting to levy any service tax under the impugned provision is also claimed. 4. Few facts which are necessary for appreciating the rival contentions are that the Petitioner No.1 before us is an Association registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and claims that it has 2000 Hotels in G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR518; [1957]31ITR959(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. Under section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, an option was given to an assessee who became liable to pay excess profits tax to make a deposit of one-fifth of the amount of the excess profits tax; and, if he did so, he became entitled to be refunded one-tenth of the amount of the excess profits tax or one-half of the said deposit, whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assessee who was liable to have his excess profits tax assessed in the United Kingdom had the benefit of the refund profits by section 10 (1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by section 10 (1) was made obligatory by clause...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom733; (1956)58BOMLR885; ILR1957Bom22; [1956]30ITR841(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. A rather important question arises on this reference with regard to the proper interpretation of the provisions contained in respect of additional Income-tax levied by the Indian Finance Act.2. The year of assessment of the assessee company i3 1953-54 and the previous year ends on 30-6-1952, and the total income of the company was Rs. 5,26,681/-, and the dividends declared by this company in that year were Rs. 4,78,950/-. There-fore they exceeded by about Rs. 1,87,691/- the ceiling of dividend fixed by the Legislature, viz. 9 annas in the rupee, and the taxing authority levied a tax at the rate of 5 annas on this amount.The levy was challenged by the assessee on various grounds and the question that has come up before us is whether Parliament has effectively made this levy looking to the provisions contained in the Act. This provision in the Finance Act came up for our consideration in two decisions. The first was in 'Elphinstone Spg. & Weaving Mills v. Commr. of Income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a practicing advocate prays for the following reliefs:- (a) Declare the impugned provisions in section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2011 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and/or be pleased to strike down the said provisions as ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(g), 246, 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India. (b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing section 71(A)(5)(d) of the Finance Act, 2011. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the Respondents themselves, by their servants, ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR2273; (2007)212CTR(Bom)384; [2008]298ITR149(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Tax Appeal No. 256 of 2007 is in respect of Assessment Year 1991-92 and Tax Appeal No. 259 of 2007 is in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95.2. The substantial question of law as formulated in both the Appeals is as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow the claim in respect of delayed payment of PF, if it has been paid upto the date of filing of Return of Income ignoring the fact that said amendment to the provisions of Section 43B of the I.T. Act was made with effect from 1st April, 2004 i.e. from Assessment Year 2004-05 and prior to that period, such contribution is to be allowed only when the same is paid before the due date of respective month.3. In both the Appeals the Assessment Officer disallowed the payment towards P.F. as being beyond the due date prescribed under the P.F. Act. The Assessee preferred an Appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the judgment of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom23
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. Under Section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, an option was given to an assessee who became liable to pay excess profits tax to make a deposit of one-fifth of the amount of the excess profits tax; and if he did so, he became entitled to be refunded one-tenth of the amount of the excess profits tax or one half of the said deposit, whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assesses who was liable to have his excess profits taxassessed in the United Kingdom had the benefit of the refund provided by Section 10 (1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by Section 10 (1) was made obligatory by clause ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. On the above writ petition, we had granted Rule on 22nd February, 2016 and directed that it be heard along with Central Excise Appeal No. 21 of 2015. 2. Rule on interim relief in the writ petition was made returnable on 21st March, 2016 and after both sides consented, we indicted to them that the writ petition itself will be disposed of finally at the stage of interim relief. Hence, by consent of both sides, we heard the matters and are disposing them of finally by this judgment. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order-in-original dated 28th November, 2014 passed by respondent no. 2. 4. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The first respondent is Union of India and the second respondent is the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Nagpur. The petitioner is holding Service Tax Registration No. AACCD1376KST001 under the ca...
Tag this Judgment!