Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979]118ITR609(Bom); [1979]1TAXMAN393(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This is a reference under s. 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, and the question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the rebate of Rs. 3,00,000 could be withdrawn for the assessment year 1959-60 on account of the bonus shares issued during the accounting year ending 30th June, 1956 ?' 2. A few facts may be stated : The assessee is a company owning a number of shipping vessels. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1959-60, the relevant accounting period being the year ending 30th June, 1958. During the accounting year ending 30th June, 1956, i.e., relating to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee had issued bonus shares. In his assessment order for the assessment year 1959-60, the ITO worked out the rebate of corporation tax allowable to the assessee at Rs. 14,50,933. From this, however, he deducted a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as withdrawal of rebate on account of the bon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)(30)LC491Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. GSM-2009/89-AHD (File No. V-2 (52Ch)13/Ahd/89) dated 5-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Appeal No. 847/89 Bom has been moved on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, while the other appeal bearing No.E/772/89Bom has been moved by M/s Mihir Textiles Ltd. against the same order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).3. Since both the appeals are against the same order and the facts and issues involved covered by the single order were argued together and hence disposed of by this common order.4. Shri K.M. Mondal, the Learned S.D.R., on behalf of the appellant-Collector, gave the brief facts relating to their appeal as below: 5. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, adjudicated 19 show cause notices issued for the purpose of recovery of duty on yarn captively consumed by the respondents mills during the various peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Shri S.S. Kang, Vice President Heard both sides. 2. Applicant filed this application for wavier of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.2,09,34,411/-, interest and penalty. Demand is confirmed in view of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the ground that the applicants were availing input service credit in respect of common input services and the same were used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods during the period from March, 2005 to November, 2008. 3. The contention of the applicant is that provisions of Rule 6 were retrospectively amended by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 and as per the provisions of retrospective amendment in case where the manufacturer is availing credit in respect of the common inputs common input services and the same are being used in exempted as well as excisable goods, the manufacturer has to reverse the credit attributed to the exempted goods and for the past period an option was given to file a declaration reversing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009[16]STR371
V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 131 and 132 of the Finance Act, 1999. By Section 131 of the Finance Act, Clause (xxviii) was inserted in Section 37(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) with effect from 1st March, 1995. By Section 132 of the Finance Act, 1999, Sub-rule 57-F(17) as inserted by Central Excise (Amendment) Rules, 1997 came to be validated from 1st March, 1997 and Clause (e) of Sub-rule (17) inserted by the Central Excise (Elevent Amendment) Rules came to be validated with effect from 1st day of October, 1997. As a result, the credit earned by the petitioners of the duty paid on the inputs used, in, or in relation to the manufacture of final product, namely toothpaste, was made to have lapsed and not to be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods cleared for home consumption, or for export, except to the extent of the credit of duty, if any, in respect of inputs lying in stock or contai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Section 14A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to "income which does not form part of the total income under this Act." Subsection (2) enables the Assessing Officer to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income in accordance with the method that may be prescribed by the Rules made under the Act if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. By subsection (3), the provisions of subsection (2) are also to apply to a situation in which the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Section 14A was introduced by an amendment to the Finance Act of 2001 with retrospective effect from 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Since both sides agree that these Appeals involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For properly appreciating the arguments of the parties, the facts in Central Excise Appeal No.214/ 2013 are referred to. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short CESTAT) dated 07.03.2013 in which it has been held that for the period upto 27.02.2010 the Appellants before us are not eligible for refund. 3. The Appeal is ADMITTED on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in holding that onsite work undertaken at customers premises of the Appellants does not fulfil the requirement of Service Provided from India contained in first leg of Rule 3(2)(a) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. (b) Whether the CESTAT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Bom)195; [1986]162ITR764(Bom)
Kania, Actg. C.J.1. This reference raises an interesting question as to what constitutes 'manufacture or processing' within the meaning of the said expression in clause(c) of sub-section(6) of section 2 of the Finance No. 2 (Act) of 1971. The reference is made on a case stated under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question posed to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the activities of the assessee in sorting our, washing, drying and blending the wool can be said to be manufacturing or processing of goods so as to fall within the scope of section 2(6)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the export of goods to foreign countries. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1971-72. During the relevant previous year, the assessee purchased raw wool in heaps from shepherds and petty traders at upcountry centers. What the assessee purchased was mixed clipp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1980]124ITR783(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. In this reference the question referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the tax paid under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, was a ' debt owed ' on the relevant valuation dates within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 '2. The assessee is an individual and is a regular assessee under the I.T. Act. He follows the Samvat Year as the previous year for his income-tax assessment. He had been last assessed to tax for the year 1962-63 by the order of the ITO dated 16th October, 1962. For the assessment year 1963-64, for which the previous year was S.Y. 2018 (ending on 28th October, 1962), the assessee had filed a return of income. Similarly, he had filed a return of income for the assessment year 1964-65, for which the previous year was S.Y. 2019. The assessments for these two years were, however, pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1995]216ITR199(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the fates and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses-company was entitled to development rebate on machinery and plant installed in the year ending 30th June, 1974, relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. The material facts are as under : The assesses is a limited company. It was incorporated on June 21, 1973. It became a partner in a firm styled Lokmat on July 1, 1973. The firm used to close its accounts every year on June 30. On December 31, 1973, the firm was dissolved and the assesses-company took over all its assets and liabilities as on December 31, 1973. The assesses-company closed its accounts on June 30, 1974. 3. In the course of proceedings for assessment of its income for the assessment year 1975-76 relevant to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Bom)19; [2009]317ITR159(Bom); [2009]184TAXMAN342(Bom)
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The principal question that arises for determination in this petition is what are the court fees payable by the assessee in preferring an appeal to Appellate Tribunal under Section 253(6) of the Income Tax Act which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel has submitted as under:3. The petitioner had filed its return of income for assessment year 200304 on 1st December 2003 in which return it claimed that it was entitled to carry forward a loss of Rs. 19,24,93,890/. The Petitioner's assessment was completed under Section 143(3) by Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 17th February 2006 by which order Respondent No. 2 determined the business loss incurred by the Petitioner at Rs. 7,18,78,768/and the longterm capital loss at Rs. 1,82,19,212/aggregating Rs. 9,00,97,980. In making the assessment Respondent No. 2 disallowed the Petitioner's claim for interest to the extent of Rs. 11,98,97,222...
Tag this Judgment!