Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)117CTR(Bom)246; [1994]206ITR578(Bom)
ORDER FOR WHICH PLACED AFTER 1-12-1973Held :The cut off date '1-12-1973' assumes utmost importance in view of the provisions contained in s. 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, which permits allowance of development rebate only on those machineries for which orders had been placed before 1-12-1973. In this case the orders for the purchase of accessories were placed after 1-12-1973. That being so, it was clearly beyond the cut off date specified in s. 16 of the Finance Act, 1974. The claim for development rebate in respect thereof was, therefore, liable to be rejected. Further, the admitted position is that the original order placed by the assessee for purchase of plant and machinery before 1-12-1973 did not include the accessories in question for which a separate order was placed by the assessee after 1-12-1973, and in that view of the matter it is not covered by s. 16(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974. Conclusion :Date in which order was placed being beyond cut off date specified in s. 16(c) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom89; (1955)57BOMLR913; ILR1956Bom31
Chainani, J.1. These are three appeals by the State of Bombay against the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judges, S.D., Ahmedabad, and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad, restraining the Ahmedabad Municipality and the State of Bombay 'from recovering urban immovable property tax from the plaintiffs on the basis of their properties being considered one building only.' The appeals have been heard together, as they involve a common point of law relating to the interpretation -of Section 22, Bombay Finance Act, 1932.2. These three appeals arise from three different suits. The plaintiffs in these suits are cousins and are owners of three properties, which form parts of one building. The land, on which this building stands, was purchased in 1940. The whole building was built at one time and thereafter it was divided into three portions, which were given different Municipal Census Nos. 2347, 2348 and 2348A. A portion in front of the entire building was kept joint for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)BomCR747; (2006)204CTR(Bom)274; 2006(4)MhLj669; 2006[4]STR183
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: (i) Whether the consideration (donation or by whatever name called) received by the appellant from M/s.Saideep Caterers and Decorators under the two separate contracts giving M/s.Saideep Caterers and Decorators monopoly rights for catering and decoration to the hirer of the appellant's hall (mandap) for official, social and business functions is chargeable to service tax within the meaning of Section 65(90)(m) of the Finance Act, 1994? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was rendering catering/decoration services within the meaning of Section 65(90)(m) of the Finance Act, 1994? 2. The senior counsel for the parties agreed that the appeal may be heard and disposed of on the aforesaid two questions at this stage. 3. The appellant is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)105TTJ(Mum.)1010
1. The above appeal has been filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dt. 16th June, 1998 for asst. yr.1993-94 relating to the assessee.2. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal pertains to the addition of a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 being provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee and allowed under Section 143(3) proceedings by the AO, by invoking the powers under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. On careful consideration of the material available with the Tribunal and analysing the same in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, we find that the original assessment for the asst.yr. 1993-94 was completed by the AO under Section 143(3) by order dt.29th March, 1996. Later on, AO issued notice to rectify the said order to disallow a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts and loans and advances which was claimed by the assessee while filing the return and allowed by the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The Tribunal has decided vide order dated 14-2-2007 the cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue for assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and vide the same order, two cross-objections of the assessee were also decided for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. In these years, three issues were involved in all these three years.2. The first issue was regarding applicability of Section 44C for allowability of head office expenses. This issue was raised in assessee's appeal for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97; whereas, the same issue was raised by the revenue in assessment year 1997-98.This issue has been decided by the Tribunal as per para No. 5 of the impugned Tribunal order as per which, the Tribunal has restored this matter back to the file of the assessing officer with the direction that the assessing officer should decide this issue afresh in all the three years as per amended provisions of Section 44C after considering the Judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the appellant against the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The case of the Revenue is that during the verification of documents it has come to light that the appellants have provided services in respect of Erection, Commissioning and Installation viz. installation of electrical and electronic devices, including wires or fittings thereof with effect from 16.06.2005 but they have not obtained registration for the same. On verifying the payment of service tax particulars it was observed that in respect of erection, commissioning and installation services they are not paying their service tax on the correct assessable value in as much as the value on which they have paid their service tax does not tally with the figures appearing in their balance sheet. Their TDS / WCT certificates have being checked, the S.T.3 returns to arrive at the correct taxable value on which the service tax ought to have been paid b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)40ITD332(Mum.)
1. The issue, as to whether the value of a flat owned by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, (hereinafter referred to as a 'closely held company') could be considered for the purpose of determining the net wealth of such a company, is involved in these appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee is a closely held company. The assessment years are 1984-85 to 1987-88 and the relevant valuation dates are 31st of December, 1983/84/85 & 86 respectively.2. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bhor Industries Limited (BIL). The BIL owned 3 flats along with car parking, garages, by virtue of holding certain shares in the respective co-operative housing societies as under:--Bldg. Flat No. Value & no. of sharesBennet Villa No. 42 5 shares of Rs. 50 eachAnand Kamal No, 3 & 4 297 shares of Rs. 50 eachNeelkant No. 25 5 shares of Rs. 50 each.Under agreements all dated 4-11-1980 entered into between the assessee and BIL, the assessee p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)104ITD86(Mum.)
1. The above appeal has been filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A) dated 16-6-1998 for assessment year 1993-94 relating to the assessee.2. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal pertains to the addition of a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 being provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee and allowed under Section 143(3) proceedings by the Assessing Officer, by invoking the powers under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. On careful consideration of the material available with the Tribunal and analysing the same in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, we find that the original assessment for the assessment year 1993-94 was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) by order dated 29-3-1996. Later on, Assessing Officer issued notice to rectify the said order to disallow a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts and loans and advances which was claimed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. There being a difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Division Bench, the Hon'ble President has referred, under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following point of difference to me as a Third Member to resolve the controversy: Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 10,99,552/- claimed by the assessee and allowed Under Section. 143(3) proceedings by the Assessing Officer, can be disallowed by invoking the provisions contained Under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and basing on the amendment made to Section 36(1), Clause -(7), which was amended by Finance Act, 2001? 2. The assessee is a limited company and for the A.Y. 1993-94 it had debited its profit and loss account with a sum of Rs. 10,99,552 on account of provisions for doubtful debts, loans and advances In the assessment order passed on 29^thMarch 1996, Under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has allowed this am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)8STT156
2. The issue in this appeal relates to the liability to pay any Service Tax by a person receiving services from goods transport operators.3. The appellants herein is having Sugar Factory and engaged the services of the goods transport operators for transporting the sugar canes to its factory during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. A Show-Cause-Notice dated 09.03.2001 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs (Service Tax) Jalgaon alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Section 68, 69 & 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) in as much as they failed to pay the Service Tax on the transportation charges paid during the period in dispute, fail to get a Registration under the Finance Act and non-furnishing the returns. The Show-Cause-Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jalgaon Division who has confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 5,69,204/- and directed them to make ...
Tag this Judgment!