Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)31ITD509(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1976-77.2. The only dispute in this appeal is concerning the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following two grounds have been raised in this appeal: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in entertaining appeal against the ITO's order levying interest Under Section 215 when there are no provisions in the I.T. Act for the same. (2) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 7,33,346 levied Under Section 215.3. An estimate of advance tax was filed at 'nil' on 15-12-1975. The assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 28,88,820.The tax thereon was worked out by the ITO at Rs. 18,19,956. As no advance tax was paid, the ITO had levied an interest under Section 215 at Rs. 7,33,346.4. In an appeal filed against the order of assessment, the assessee, int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD158(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the Department are directed against the combined order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 3rd Jan., 1992 for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1980-81 passed under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). The Department has expressed its grievance by raising the following grounds in its appeals. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in granting depreciation on WDV of Scientific research assets where deduction has been granted under Section 35 of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to the above facts the CIT(A) ought to have considered the amendment to Section 35(2) (iv) of the IT Act with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1962 wherein no depreciation is to be granted under Section 32 where deduction has been granted under Section 35 of the Act." 2. Earlier, the CIT(A), in quantum appeals, had confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on the written down value (WDV) of scientific research assets on which deduction had been allowed un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR659; [1991]187ITR517(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing and selling textile auxiliaries and other allied chemicals, Paints, etc. For the assessment year 1971-72, along with other claim, the assessee claimed depreciation on its laboratory building worth Rs. 71,024 and depreciation with triple shift allowance on laboratory machinery worth Rs. 2,16,206, these being in the nature of capital items used for scientific research relating to the business of the assessee. Before the Income-tax Officer, it was contended that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on these items under section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though deduction under section 35(1)(iv) and section 32(2)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had already been allowed in the previous years in respect of these items.2. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the ground that as deduction had already been allowed in the previous years under section 35 in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(2)ALLMR314; (2001)165CTR(Bom)518; [2001]248ITR29(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J. 1. The following question of law has been raised by the department in this Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act : Whether the assessee was entitled to claim 40% of the profit as deduction (20% under section 80HH and 20% under section 80-I) even though section 80-HH(9) provides that deduction under section 80-HH shall be given first, followed by deduction under section 80-I? 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows. The assessee is a Specific Family Trust, carrying on proprietary business in the name and style of Nirma Detergent in Gujarat. It is assessable to tax under Section 161(1A) of the Income Tax Act. In this Appeal, we are concerned with the assessment year 1988-1989 relevant to the accounting year ending 31st December. 1987. The A. O. allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-I at 20% of the total income and on the balance income, the A. O. granted deduction under section 80-HH at 20%. Being aggrieved by the Order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC(1973)DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur has filed an appeal against Order No. S/49-94/81 GC (Nagpur) dated the 10th day of November, 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 7-4-1981, Preventive Officers, Amravati Division, during the course of checking of the accounts and stock of the respondent found that he was in possession of primary gold weighing 592.200 gms. He had a gold smith's licence. As per provisions of Section 42(ii) a goldsmith can have 300 gms. and thus the respondent had 292.200 gms. gold in excess as per the version of the appellant. A show cause notice dated 22-7-81 was issued to the respondent to show cause why penal action should not be taken on him under Section 74 of the Act and why the seized gold should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Act. Respondent had filed a reply.The officers bad asked only for GS 13 register. Respondent had also obtained a Gold Dealer's Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991LC18(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT16(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Government of India to challenge legality of judgment dated July 23, 1987 delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1539 of 1981. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge declared that the amendments to Section 2(f) and to Tariff Item No. 27 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 made by the Finance Act, 1980 and also Tariff Item 8313.11 in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to the extent to which it purports to authorise the levy of excise duty on the process of lacquering and printing of aluminium containers, and also Chapter Note 2 at the beginning of Chapter 83 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act are unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void. The learned Judge, as a consequence of the declaration, directed the appellants to refund the duty collected to the respondents within three months. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are required to be stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)18ITD226(Mum.)
1. This Special Bench was constituted to consider the question whether provisions of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') are applicable to assessment year 1976-77, irrespective of previous year followed by the assessee. A Bombay Bench had expressed the opinion that it would, while a Madras Bench had held that Section 40A(8) would apply only to expenditure on interest incurred after 1-4-1976.2. The assessee-company manufactures Pharmaceuticals, drugs and milk products. Its accounting year ended on 30-6-1975 which is relevant for the assessment year 1976-77 (year under consideration). The ITO had disallowed under Section 40A(8) Rs. 3,11,040. The only discussion in the assessment order as per paragraph 10 is that (assessee) has correctly shown disallowance at the rate of 15 per cent of Rs. 20,73,598 (out of interest paid) amounting to Rs. 3,22,040. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee raised an additional ground challenging the disallowance under Section 40A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR550; (1992)102CTR(Bom)194; [1992]196ITR55(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J. 1. The first petitioner is a public limited company. In this petition, the first petitioner has challenged an intimation sent to it under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act demanding income-tax and additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. 2. For the assessment year 1990-91, the first petitioner filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 41,64,600 consisting of income chargeable under the head 'Business or profession'. Along with the return of income, the first petitioner also filed a tax audit report in Form No. 3CD as required under the provision of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The first petitioner claimed various deductions in the return of income. 3. On May 16, 1991, the first petitioner received an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act dated March 18, 1991. Along with the intimation, an adjustment explanatory sheet was annexed. In that sheet, the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD298(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Bombay.2. The assessee is a limited company and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1979-80. Among the claims before the ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings, one was that the preliminary expenses of Rs. 4,95,435 shown on the assets side of the balance sheet should be taken into account in working out the capital employed for the purpose of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').This claim was not accepted by the ITO. It was brought to our notice at the time of the hearing of the appeal that this claim was also made by grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but was, not considered by him. The assessee-company has, therefore, come up in the present appeal before us.3. The assessee's learned counsel, Shri Lalkaka, pointed out that the preliminary expenses of Rs. 4,95,435 appearing on the assets side of the balance sheet were for publi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)14ITD64(Mum.)
1. This is a miscellaneous application by the department arising out of the order of the Tribunal disposing of a departmental appeal for the assessment year 1974-75. In the original order of the Tribunal, one of the issues decided was the quantum of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. In the miscellaneous application, the department has pointed out that the liability of Rs. 31.8 lakhs cannot be treated as part of the capital employed in view of the retrospective amendment of Section 80J.According to the department, it would show that there is a mistake which requires rectification.3. The Finance Act, 1980 has amended the provisions retrospectively and as per the amended provisions, it is not open for the assessee to include this amount of Rs. 31.8 lakhs as part of the capital employed.As per the amended provisions, therefore, the order of the Tribunal would be a mistake and it should be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act.4. Shri Dastur appearing ...
Tag this Judgment!