Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)32ITD689(Mum.)
1. These two cross appeals (one each by the Department and by the assessee) are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.. We shall deal with the appeal by the department first 2. The first ground in this departmental appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief of Rs. 28,66,066 under the provisions of Section 35B on commission paid to Chemi Exports Kontours, G.M.B.H.It is submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the relief granted by the CIT(A) is without any justification. Adverting to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1980 w.e.f. 1/4/1981, it is pointed out that several of the sub-clauses of Section 35B(l)(b) have been deleted and those that survived did not enable the assessee to claim the relief as was ordered by the CIT (A). The claim has been processed by the CIT(A) under Clause (iv) of Section 35B(l)(b). This clause speaks of maintenance of an agency outside India for promotion of sale outside India of goods, servic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1984]10ITD63(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri R. L. Sangani, Judicial Member - This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1976-77.2. The assessee is a non-resident shipping company, incorporated in the United Kindgom. Prior to the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee was being assessed in accordance with the directions contained in Circular No. 7 [C. No. 27 (17)-IT/41], dated 10-2-1942-Taxmanns Direct Taxes Circular, Vol. 1. 1980 edn., p. 567 issued by the CBDT. That circular allowed a British shipping company to elect to be assessed on the basis of the ratio certificate granted by the UK authorities regarding the income or loss and the wear and tear allowance.3. Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which was inserted in the Act, by the Finance Act, 1975, with effect from the assessment year 1976-77, made a special provision for computing profits and gains of shipping business in case of non-residents. The contention of the assessee before the ITO was that since the said circular had not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1075DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lid., Bombay have filed an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central brxcise (Appeals), Bombay vide order No. V 2(6) 2190/81/10692 dated 26.10.82, requesting for refund of excise duty paid in excess. The learned Collector had disposed of four appeals in a consolidated order.2. Shri C.R. Dafle on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that storage tank Nos. 407 and 508 were recalibrated by the CPWD authorities and recalibration was approved with effect from 1.8.77 and subsequently in April, 1980 CPWD authorities informed that recalibration was ed or received was more than the actual quantity as revealed from the revised recalibration w.e.f. 20.4,1980. As a result, during the intervening period, the appellant paid more duty and filed the refund claims as under: _____________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Appeal No. Dt. of refund Period to which claim claims pertained. ________________...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)(19)ECC243
1. This appeal arises as under: The respondents herein imported 1053 drums palm oil valued at Rs. 14,22,925/-cif and sought clearance against 8 REP licences. They also placed reliance on para 131(1) of the Policy AM-81 and para 138(1) of the Policy AM-82.2. The Customs House objected to the clearance on the ground that one of the licences, which was subject to value and restriction, had been already utilised for the import of Mutton Tallow. In respect of the other licences the objection was that the goods were canalised items and therefore not permissible to be imported by any agency other than the canalising agency.3. The Collector of Customs, who held the adjudication after duly complied with the procedural aspects held that the goods valued at Rs. 39,401/- was covered by the licence and the goods to the extent of Rs. 13,83,523.90 have been imported without cover of a valid licence. He therefore ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-. On ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)7ITD274(Mum.)
1. An original assessment was made in the case of this assessee-trust by the WTO applying the provisions of Section 21(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). The Commissioner looking into the file of the assessee found that while applying the above provisions, the WTO allowed a deduction under Section 5(1A) of the Act in respect of the net wealth covered by the shares held by the assessee-trust. According to the Commissioner, this deduction was not to be granted, the order of the WTO was, thus, erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Giving an opportunity to the assessee in this regard the Commissioner, therefore, set aside the order of the WTO and directed him to make a fresh assessment in the light of the observations made by him, i.e., in effect not giving a deduction under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(1A) in the case of the assessee-trust. The appeal is directed against this order of the Commissioner.2. The learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)43ITD237(Mum.)
1 to 3. [These paras are not reproduced here, as they involve minor issues.] 4. Ground No.3 in assessee's appeal is concerning investment allowance for machinery used for scientific research, the whole cost of which was allowed in the assessment year 1982-83 under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. The assessee's claim that proviso (d), to Section 32A(1) would apply when both the deductions are in one year and not in a case where whole of the actual cost was allowed as a deduction in two different previous years, namely, year ending on 30-6-1981 and 30-6-1982 was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He held that the actual cost of the machinery as at the end of the accounting period was the actual cost incurred till the end of the accounting year which was allowed in full while computing the income for assessment year 1982-83 and, therefore, proviso (d) to Section 32A(1) prohibited the deduction. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the IAC by observing that though the argument was plau...
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 : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)100ITD217(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, filed by the Revenue relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. These appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT(A)-XVII at Mumbai passed on 23-11 -1998 and 12-2-2000, respectively. The appeals do arise out of the assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. These two appeals are placed before this Special Bench to consider and decide the following question referred to it by the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, setting off of short-term capital gains against long term capital losses is permissible to compute the amount for taxation under the head 'capital gains'.3. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President as the relevant question was referred to by the regular Bench of ITAT, H-Bench, Mumbai, while hearing the appeal in ITA Nos. 829/Mum./1999 and 2400/Mum./2000. When the cases were taken up for hearing by the said Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(17)ECC371; 1987(31)ELT696(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioner company, manufactures various kinds of packing materials, containers including tubes popularly known as aluminium collapsible and rigid tubes. These tubes are manufactured by them in a factory situated at Worli, Bombay. The process of manufacturing collapsible tubes consists of forcing slugs or lumps of aluminium through a die under pressure. This operation known as the extrusion operation is carried out in a machine known as the 'Extrusion Press'. After the tube is delivered from the extrusion press, it is finished, that is, trimmed to a correct length and its nozzle is threaded to the appropriate specification. The petitioners says that the operation of extrusion is complete at this stage and the resultant product is known as an extruded tube comes into existence. This item is liable for excise duty under Item No. 27(e) of the Tariff as it stood then.2. The said item 27 also included sub-item (f) relating to containers made of aluminium, and there is an explana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)7SOT26(Mum.)
The first ground of objection (Ground Nos. 1 to 3) taken by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in disallowing the claim for exemption under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.In this case the assessee filed the return on 22-10-2001 declaring income of Rs. 32,700 along with Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and Auditors' Report. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under section 143(2) of the Act.Assessee is engaged in the business of cutting, polishing and exporting diamonds, labour job in diamonds and dealer in computer hardware and software. Assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 25,87,826.50 under section 10A of the Act, being a newly established undertaking in free trade zone. Assessee set up a new manufacturing unit at EPZ, Sachin in Gujarat. The nature of business in the requisite format, certified by the Auditor, has been mentioned as "manufacturers and exporters of diamonds" and the date of commencement of manufact...
Tag this Judgment!