Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD287(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it relates to asstt.year 1990-91. The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant valuation date was 31-3-1990. It filed wealth-tax return on 20-9-1991 returning a net wealth of Rs. 2 lakhs. The assessee has three pieces of land at Juhu, Chunabhatti & Baroda besides having land and building called "Bella Vista" property at Peddar Road. It had also "Patel House" as one of its assets besides having movable properties like motor cars.By his assessment order dated 15-5-1993, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the net wealth of the assessee at Rs. 31,53,02,500. Against the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the CWT (Appeals) IV, Mumbai. The learned CWT (Appeals), Mumbai, by his order dated 3-5-1994, partly allowed the appeal. Now, against the unsuccessful portion of the claim of the assessee before the CWT (Appeals), the present second appeal is filed.2. In this wealth-tax appeal the, first ground is with regard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These appeals belonging to same assessee, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the record and other applicable legal position.3. First, we shall take up revenue's appeal in ITA No. 7131 /Mum./03 for assessment year 2001-02 which is directed against the order dated 31-7-2003 of Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,89,634 being the expenses on replacement of carpet and linen which are in the nature of capital expenses." 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by various orders of the Tribunal in assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and placed copies of the Tribunal orders for these years on record.6. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)74ITD190(Mum.)
..... department on the decision of kerala high court in the case of casino (p) ltd. (supra).there also, the kerala high court was seized with the interpretation of the definition of the term "industrial company" as given in finance act, 1968. in the present case, of course, we are concerned with the definition as given in finance act, 1974. however, the definitions being similar, the interpretation given by kerala high court can be dissected for our purposes. the decision in casino (supra) is clearly distinguishable. kerala high court gave more ..... passengers. these facts are the bench-mark of what is merchandise. therefore, we hold that the assessee's separate catering unit satisfied the requirement of s. 80j(4)(iii) of the act and the assessee's claim for relief under s. 80j allowable". "(4) this section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all the following conditions, namely : (iii) it manufactures or produces articles, or operates one or more cold storage plant or plants, in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)108ITD457(Mum.)
1. The department has filed the present appeal on the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow deduction of Rs. 1,94,96,945 on account of the provisions for accrued expenses which was correctly disallowed by the assessing officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow exemption under Section 10(33) in respect of whole dividend income of Rs, 4,85,24,362 instead of the net income rightly determined by the assessing officer at Rs. 1, 17,21,951 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee- company was engaged in the business of providing financial services like commercial vehicle financing, equipment finance, advances against financial assets and inter-corporate loans and deposits. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)35ITD268(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee, relate to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Common contentions are raised, the appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this order.2. The first common ground of appeal is that the CWT(A) erred in not accepting the assessee's contention that the assessee was a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the IT Act, 1961 and hence not liable to wealth-tax.The assessee is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Limited, India which holds 99.8 per cent of the share capital of the assessee. Johnson & Johnson Limited, India is, in turn, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, USA - the shareholding of the USA company being 75 per cent of the equity share capital of the Indian company. The foreign company, i.e., the USA company which is the parent company of Johnson & Johnson Limited, is registered under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom143; [1944]12ITR358(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal the question raised being :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that the rates of super-tax prescribed by the Indian Finance Act, 1939, applied to the assessees income for super-tax for the purpose of his assessment for the year 1939-40 ?.'The question really involves whether Section 6(4) (b) of the Finance Act of 1939 is applicable to the case of the assessee.The facts found are that the total world income of the assessee is Rs. 2,43,119; his interest on securities is Rs. 44,364, and his other income in British India is negligible. It is also found that the assessee is a non-resident.Under the amended Income-tax Act, which came into force on April 1, 1939, Section 17 lays down the method of calculating the assessable income of a non-resident. Section 18 deals with the subject of deduction at the source, and the material sub-section for the present case is (3D), which provides :-'Where the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)STR167
1. The delay in filing the appeals by M/s. Puriflair India Pvt. Ltd. and Dinesh Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is condoned in view of the explanation offered by the applicants that time was required by them for collecting details from goods transport operators in order to work out their tax liability and in view of the fact that the same explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal in the case of Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda (Order No. CI/2540/WZB/2002, dated 14-8-2002.) 2. Now I take up the stay applications for hearing. All the above captioned applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts (as per Annexure A) arise out of the different Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1944, directing all the applicants to work out service tax payable by them during the period from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 and pay the same along with the interest till date of the payment of the service tax at the prescribed rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. Heard both sides. The dispute in these appeals relates to rate of duty in respect of DTA clearances made by an EOU. The period involved is September 196 to December 1996, January 1997 to June 1997 and July 1997 to December 1997. Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prior to its amendment in 2000 read as follows:- "Provided that the duties of excise which shall be levied and collected on any excisable goods which are produced or manufactured,- (ii) by a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking and allowed to be sold in India, shall be an amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1982 (52 of 1962), on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India, and where the said duties of customs are chargeable by reference to their value; the value of such excisable goods shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, be determined in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999]236ITR220(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was not a company in which the public are substantially interested as defined in the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, for the purpose of the First Schedule to the said Finance Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that no appeal lies against charge of interest under section 139 of the Act ?' 2. Though this reference pertains to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76, the second question is confined to the assessment year 1974-75 only. 3. The assessee is an Indian company incorporated under the Companies Act in India. During the relevant assessment years, it was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company incorporated in the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award 28th April, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting part of the claims made by the petitioner towards reimbursement of the service tax w.e.f. 16th June, 2005 with interest. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. Sometimes in the month of January 2005 M/s. Engineers India Ltd. who had been appointed as Project Management Consultant for implementation of the project of the respondent, invited sealed bids for laying of pipeline and associated works under Single Stage II Envelope system from competent agencies with sound technical and financial capabilities and meeting the qualification criteria. 3. On 28th February, 2005 in the Finance Bill 2005, the Finance Minister...
Tag this Judgment!