Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)1BOMLR744; (2000)164CTR(Bom)97; 2001(2)MhLj695
S. H. Kapadia, J.1. The above group of appeals raise common questions of law. Hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 81 of 1999 are taken into consideration.2. Two questions of law arise in this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.(1) Whether the assessee Trust was assessable as an individual and consequently entitled to deduction under Section 80-L of the Act? (2) Whether the assessee-Trust violated Section 13(1)(d) of the Act in the Assessment Year 1993-94 by not disinvesting the shares of nongovernmental Companies by 31st March, 1993? FACTS :3. The assessee-Trust came into existence after 1st June, 1973. The assessee-Trust was the holder of equity shares of Mafatlal Industries upto 31st March, 1993. The same were not disinvested or disposed of by 31st March, 1993. The assesses claims that it was entitled to hold the said shares upto 31st March, 1993; that, they were required to disinvest on and aft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1963]50ITR267(Bom)
Y.S. Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee is a public limited company. The valuation date is 31st December, 1956, the corresponding assessment year being 1957-58. The company made up its accounts as at 31st December, 1956, and a copy of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company is on the record of this reference as annexure 'A'. The Wealth-tax Officer proceeded to compute the net wealth of the assessee in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act without ascertaining the market value of each of the assets of the company in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act. In short, in making the valuation under sub-section (2) of section 7 the Wealth-tax Officer took the net value of the assets of the business as a whole having regard to the balance-sheet of the assessee as on the valuation date. He, however, made certain adjustments. The cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1978]115ITR538(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this excess profits tax reference made by the Tribunal to this court under s. 21 of the EPT Act, 1940, three questions have been referred for our determination, viz. : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the excess profits for the chargeable accounting periods ending 31-3-1942, 31-3-1943, 31-3-1944, 31-3-1945 and 31-3-1946, the depreciation of Rs. 5,68,898, Rs. 4,85,102, Rs. 4,12,994, Rs. 3,59,759 and Rs. 2,99,298, respectively, referable to capitalised interest included in the cost of machinery, was deductible (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, in computing the capital employed in the assessee's business for the chargeable accounting periods ending 31-3-1945 and 31-3-1946 voluntary deposit of Rs. 50,36,928 was deductible and (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the allowance of Rs. 95,21,000 granted by the Central Board of Revenue under s. 26(3)(a) of the EPT Act in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1967]65ITR179(Bom)
V.S. Desai, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of rectification under section 154 of the Indian Income-tax Act made on February 8, 1965, by the respondent of the assessments of the petitioner No. 1 firm for the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 and for quashing the said orders and the subsequent notices of demand issued in pursuance thereof dated February 9, 1965. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the two partners of the petitioner No. 1 firm and the firm as well as the partners are being assessed in India as non-residents. The petitioner-firm was duly registered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and also under the Income-tax Act of 1961. In the original assessments of the firm for the relevant assessment years with which we are concerned, the assessments were made on the slab relates applicable to registered firms in the respective Finance Acts. In the individual assessments of the partners their respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1956)58BOMLR32; [1955]28ITR811(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The working of the assessee company for the accounting year 1950 resulted in a loss and therefore for the assessment year 1951-52 the assessee company was not liable to pay any tax. In that very year the assessee company declared dividends amounting to Rs. 3,29,062 in respect of the year 1950, and the contention of the Department was that this sum constituted excess dividend and was liable to pay tax, and the two questions that have been raised by the Tribunal which we have to consider are (1) whether the assessee company was liable to pay additional income-tax, and (2) if the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, whether the levy of the additional tax was ultra vires. 2. In order to understand the contention of the assessee it is necessary as it sometimes is, to go back to the first principles of the Income-tax Act. Section 3 is the charging section and that section provides : 'Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at any rat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)415
1. These two appeals are cross-appeals. IT(SS)A No. 76/Mum/2004 is filed by the assessee. IT(SS)A No. 127/Mum/2004 is filed by the Revenue. These block assessment appeals are directed against the order of the CIT(A), Central-VIII at Mumbai, passed on 28th Nov., 2003. These appeals arise out of the block assessment completed under Section 158BC(c) r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. The block assessment order has been passed on 27th Dec., 2000, fixing a total undisclosed income of Rs. 13,73,35,263 as against nil income returned by the assessee.2. The assessee in this case, M/s Sun Pharma Exports (SPEX), is a partnership firm constituted by a deed of partnership dt. 30th Sept., 1994. It was engaged in the business of pharmaceutical products having its factory at plot No. 223, Span Industrial Estate, Dadra. The partnership firm carried on the said business upto 12th May, 1998, on which date the entire business of the assessee-firm was assigned to M/s Sankalp Laboratories Ltd. (SLL) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)10STR397
1. This stay application has been filed by the applicants against the Order-in-Original No 12/MJ (12)/Commr/RGD/MAERSK/07-08 dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raigad.2. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order, held the services rendered by M/s Maersk India Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as MIPL for short) for providing storage of export goods to M/s Maersk Logistic India Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as MLOG for short) is taxable under Section 65(102) of the Finance Act, 1994; he confirmed demand of Service Tax made in the Show Cause Notice to the extent of Rs. 53,66,874/-; ordered MIPL to pay interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay service tax when it was due and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 because the charge of suppression is proved from 1.2.2005.4. The brief facts of the case are that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
P.R. Chandrasekharan: There are three appeals directed against Orders-in-Original No: 22/2008/C/ST/2008 dated 30/12/2008; 08/2009/ST/C dated 29/12/2009 and 12/ST/2010/C dated 29/10/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur. Since all these orders pertain to a common issue, they are taken together for consideration and disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1. Appeal No: ST/65/2009: The appellant, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (BHEL), Nagpur are registered with the Central Excise department for the purpose of service tax, inter alia, under the category of ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’. The appellant had entered into contracts with their various clients for setting up of power plants at various sites which involved supply of goods as well as supply of services. The appellant were availing abatement of 67% of the total contract value and paying service tax only on 33% of the contract value in terms of Notification No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)9STJ109CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The issue relates to demand of interest on delayed payment of service tax on Clearing & Forwarding Agents. The appellants have taken the following grounds in their Memorandum of Appeal: 1. Because the order has been passed in a pure mechanical fashion without appreciating the legal provisions in a correct perspective manner and is also based on surmises and conjunctures and neither learned Assessing Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered the facts on record. 2. Because while passing the impugned order the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority overlooked and did not consider that no amount of service tax was payable by the appellant. 3. Because while passing the impugned order the learned authorities failed to consider that the application for refund by the appellant is still pending and without disposing off, it was not appropriate for the authorities to pass any order for recovery of interest or penalty. 4. Because no show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)BomCR637; [2006(3)JCR181]; 2006(6)MhLj123
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the Destructive Insects and Pests (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Validation Act, 1992). The challenge is on the ground that the Parliament has no competence to overrule a binding judicial pronouncement between the petitioners and the respondents.2. The first petitioner M/s. R. Piyarelall Import and Export Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the first petitioner as 'the company'. The second petitioner is the Director and Shareholder of the company.3. The company carries on business inter alia in the imports and sale of pulses. Around the month of September, 1991, the company imported consignments of pulses, in particular 699.668 metric tonnes of toor whole crop F.A.G. The company also imported several other consignments during the period October, 1989 to February, 1992...
Tag this Judgment!