Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)30CTR(Bom)254; [1983]143ITR318(Bom); [1982]11TAXMAN79(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1963-64, corresponding in the case of the assessee to the previous year ended December 31, 1962. The business of the assessee consists of purchasing crude oil, processing it into petroleum products and selling the same both in the Indian markets and exporting the same to other countries. During the year under consideration, the assessee had made export sales to the tune of Rs. 1,98,99,745 against its total sales of Rs. 37,20,15,963. Certain rebate was granted in taxation in respect of profits and gains made on exports to which we shall presently refer. For the purposes of determining that rebate, the assessee filed before the ITO calculation of export profits as under :Export profits Rs. 1,98,99,745 x 3,94,91,546- ----------- equal to Rs. 33,08,179.- 23,80,12,8612. The assessee took the dividing factor at Rs. 23,80,12,861 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit.2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the ITAT on 27th February, 2009 pertaining to assessment years 2003-04. By the order of the Tribunal, proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been set aside.3. The Revenue has formulated the following questions of law in an appeal under Section 260A:a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, without discussing the facts of the case and the clauses of the agreement between NHAI and the assessee ?b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in ignoring relevant facts and findings in the order under appeal ?c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in allowing the deduction Under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR1160; (2006)201CTR(Bom)207; [2006]285ITR229(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner in this petition seeks to challenge action of respondent No. 1 rejecting the declaration made by the Petitioner under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ('KVS Scheme' for short) in respect of tax arrears of late Prince Sayajirao Gaekwar under Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1978-79; 1981-82; and 1984-85 to 1986-87 contending that the order of rejection suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the provisions of KVS Scheme.Factual Scenario:2. The factual scenario giving rise to the present petition in nutshell is as under:3. The petitioner is a legal heir of deceased Prince Sayajirao Gaekwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for short), who died in France on or about 7th of May, 1985. The petitioner is a non-resident, being a citizen of the United Kingdom, presently residing in Monaco in the South of France.4. The respondent No. 1 is the Commissioner of Income-tax, who is the designated authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)120CTR(Bom)85; [1995]214ITR175(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the computation of the capital for purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in terms of Rule 4 of the Second Schedule, an amount in proportion to the relief allowed to the assessee under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, in the corresponding assessment to income-tax had to be deducted in assessment to surtax for the assessment year 1977-78 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the surcharge though notlevied in the assessee's case was deductible while computing the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ?' 2. It is stated at the Bar that the controversy in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1995]213ITR517(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8) of the Finance Act, 1975 ?' 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee is a limited company which deals in diamonds. Its main activities comprise import of raw diamonds and after cutting and polishing the same, export thereof out of India. The assessee claimed to be an 'industrial company' within the meaning of section 2(8) (c) of the Finance Act, 1975. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee appealed against the above order to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who accepted the contention of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom351; (1958)60BOMLR63; ILR1958Bom694
Shah, J.REFERENCE NO. 39 OF 1956 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for decision to us:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the question regarding allowability of the interest of Rs. 9,307/- could be agitated by the Department before the Tribunal hearing the appeal after the order dated 12-1-1954? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the interest of Rs. 9,307/- was an admissible deduction under Section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act? 2. The facts which give rise to the two questions may be briefly set out. The assessee was assessed in the year 1951-52 for the accounting year Samvat Year 2006 in respect of Income from business in speculation, salary from Ind. Corporation Ltd. and T. Maneklal Ltd., income from partnership business in the names of Messrs. T. Maneklal Mfg. Co. and T. Maneklal Ltd., and income from 'other sources' such as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Income Tax Appeal No.201 of 2012 is filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein the following questions of law are projected as substantial and read as under:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in allowing to the Assessee Company a deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2006-2007 amounting to Rs.2,11,74,864/- wherein the commercial area built by the assessee exceeded the limit specified in clause (d) to section 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act 1961? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the limits on commercial area provided in clause (d) to section 80IB(10) of the Act would not be applicable even after 01.04.2005 as the projects were approved before that date even though no such exception is provided under the Income Tax Act? 2. This appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1.All these petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are challenging imposition of penalty under section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 ("Finance Act" or "Act" for short) for delay in payment of Foreign Travel Tax ("FTT" for short) to the Government. The facts involved in all these petitions are more or less common and issues involved are identical. Hence all these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.Facts of W.P.No.17/2004 :2. The petitioner in this petition is a Airline Company engaged in the business of carrying passengers between various locations in India and abroad. The petitioner in the course of its business collected FTT from passengers going abroad in accordance with the Finance Act and Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 framed thereunder ("FTT Rules" for short). The petitioner for the months of April, August, September and December, 2001 failed to pay the FTT within the stipulated period. In vie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)123CTR(Bom)256; [1995]211ITR557(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was not engaged in the business of manufacturing of goods within the meaning of the definition of an industrial company under section 2(8) (c) of the Finance Act, 1975 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1975-76, the corresponding previous year being the year ended on September 30, 1974. Prior to March 23, 1972, apart from other activities, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various kinds of brushes including tooth brushes, hair combs and articles, tooth paste and other toilet articles which were marketed by it under its own brand names. For this purpose, it install...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)9STJ112CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to payment of service tax, penalty and interest. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The Revenue has taken the following grounds in their Memorandum of Appeal: (I) In this case, the main issue is related to the question -whether the notice had provided any service - which was coming into preview of service tax or not. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the noticee's submission that since the agreement was terminated without providing any service, the appellants not liable to pay service tax However, a close look of termination agreement reveals that noticee's claim is factually not correct. It is clear from para 1.b of Preamble of termination agreement that "LKCA" has completed draft conceptual design, though there are different viewpoint on the scope of its completion between WRBPL and LKCA". Thus, it is quite clear that before agreement of termination the service of "Draft Conceptual Design" was provided by M/s. LKCA. Thus Commissioner (Appeals)...
Tag this Judgment!