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!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J). The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of what are referred to as "RCC cement blocks" in one of the show-cause notices, "concrete blocks" in another one and "cement blocks" in the rest of the notices. They filed a classification list effective from 23.6.1988 describing their products as "hollow/solid cement blocks constituting components of prefabricated buildings falling under Heading 94.06" and claiming the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.64/88-CE dated 1.3.1988. This and two other classification lists filed upto 1990 were approved. In respect of classification lists filed thereafter, however, only provisional approval was given in view of a classification dispute which arose between the department and one M/s. Excon Building Materials Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. in respect of identical goods. [It appears from the records that, after the dispute was settled by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue in Excon case, the depart...
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 : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)24ITD211(Mum.)
1. This appeal involves a question of inclusion in the net wealth of the value of certain gold bonds which had matured before the valuation date. The assessee was the holder of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, and the date of redemption of these bonds was the 27th October, 1980.The valuation date is 31-3-1981. The assessee had not redeemed them and his contention has been that the value of the Bond is exempt from wealth-tax Under Section 5(1)(xvia). He has pointed out that the Govt.of India by a Press notification dated 23rd March, 1982, had extended the date of redemption of these Bonds up to 30th September, 1982. The Commissioner has considered the Press notification whereunder the repayment facilities were extended. The said Press Notification inter alia states as follows : Some holders of National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980 have not so far tendered their Bonds at the repayment centres. To avoid any inconvenience to them, facilities for delivery of Gold in repayment of these Bonds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)9ITD882(Mum.)
1. The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. The first ground relates to the assessee's claim for depreciation on assets which were formerly used for scientific research. By the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the provisions of Section 35(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were amended retrospectively so as to deny the assessee's claim for relief under Section 32 of the Act in respect of such assets. The assessee, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the ITO from taking into account the retrospective amendment of Section 35(2)(iv) for the assessment year under consideration. The High Court by the order dated 17-12-1980 granted injunction as prayed by the assessee.And yet, the ITO while framing the assessment for the year under consideration made an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by applying the retrospective amendment of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)38CTR(Bom)203; [1985]151ITR67(Bom)
Desai, J.1. In this reference two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, Bench 'D', are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss apportioned to the wife in the firm of M/s. Kosangas & Company was rightly excluded in determining the appellant's total income or total loss ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 and had rightly passed the order in question ?'2. A few facts necessary to appreciate the point in controversy may now be stated. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Kosangas & Company in which his wife, Rukmini, was also a partner. We are concerned in this matter for assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. For these two years the said firm had suffered a net loss in its business. When the ITO finalised the assessment for the two y...
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
1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17.12.2003 and 6.4.2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7.11.2003 and 12.12.2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders Under Section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" 2. The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610/-on 29th October, 2001. The Assessing Officer completed assessment Under Section 143(3) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)96ITD1(Mum.)
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee on 17-12-2003 and 6-4-2004 against the orders of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IV, Mumbai dated 7-11-2003 and 12-12-2003 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under section 143(3) for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2000-2001 respectively. These appeals have been referred to us as a Special Bench to decide the following issues: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss incurred by the assessee on purchase and sale of units of Mutual Funds is allowable or not? 2. Whether the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be interpreted as retrospective in operation and if so, its effect?" The facts of the case relevant to the questions referred to us, briefly, are that the assessee company filed return of income for assessment year 2001-2002 disclosing total income at Rs. 57,31,610 on 29-10-2001. The assessing officer completed assessment under section 143(3) on 31-3-2003 at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Sanjay Arora, A.M. 1. This is a set of four Appeals by the Assessee directed against the Orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 07.09.2010, 07.09.2010, 21.12.2010 and 13.09.2011 for four consequent years, being assessment years (AYs) 2005-06 to 2008-09, partly allowing the assessee's appeals against its assessments u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the relevant years. 2. The appeals raising common issues, were heard together and are being disposed of vide a common, consolidated order. The principal issue arising in these appeals, raised by the assessee per its Ground No. 1, is in respect of determination of its business income for the relevant years without allowing it set off of depreciation / losses of its two Units, i.e., Windmill 1 and 2, income from which is otherwise eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. 2.1 The basis of the Assessing Officer's (A.O.) disallowance, since confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is...
Tag this Judgment!