Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)LC1886DTri(Mum.)bai
1. The Assistant Collector (Technical) of the office of the Collector of Central Excise Baroda has filed this appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the order No.V-2(19)1172/82 dated 22-6-1982 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The Collector of Central Excise of Baroda has authorised the Assistant Collector concerned to file this appeal. The respondent in the appeal M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad have filed a cross objection in this case also. Therefore, both the appeals and cross-objections are being considered and decided simultaneously.2. The main point taken up in the appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is that Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 which added Explanation III to Notification No. 226/77, dated 15-7-1977 should have the effect from the date of the issue and not retrospectively. The effect of the Notification No. 7/78, dated 17-1-1978 was that it permitted the department to calculate the average...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : [1993]203ITR891(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Appellate Tribunal has referred certain question of law arising out of the decision of the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year involved is 1974-75. The assessee-company had incurred capital expenditure of Rs. 87,453 for scientific research and development in the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Deduction under section 35 was allowed at Rs. 76,784 and Rs. 10,669, respectively, in these two assessment years. The assessee also claimed depreciation of Rs. 5,708 on the capital assets used for scientific research and development. This was disallowed. 3. The Income-tax Officer excluded this total amount of Rs. 87,453 from the capital computation for the purposes of deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed this amount to be included in the capital c...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)168CTR(Bom)99; [2001]249ITR612(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The following questions of law arise for determination in the aforesaid two writ petitions :'(A) Whether the interest-tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974. is a tax on income and, if so, whether interest accruing to the UTI from loans advanced by it stands exempted in view of Section 32 of the UTI Act, 1963 ? (B) If the answer to question No. (A) is in the negative then whether communication dated January 29, 2001, withdrawing the letter/circular dated October 11, 1991, issued by the CBDT was retrospective and whether Interest-tax Act, 1974, was applicable for the accounting years 1991-92 to 1998-99 ? (C) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department was right in invoking Section 10(a) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, for failure on the part of the UTI to file returns under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 ?' Facts :2. On September 23, 1974, Parliament enacted the Interest-tax Act, 1974. At that time, it applied to scheduled banks, the IDBI, the IFCI, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(14)LC131(Bombay)
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. 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 petitioner says that the operation of extrusion is complete at this stage and the resultant product 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...
Tag this Judgment!