Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. All these five appeals by the assesses arise out of five separate orders of the learned CIT(A), dt. 28th Nov., 1995, 24th July, 1996, 30th July, 1997, 28th July, 1998, and 29th Oct., 1999, for asst. yrs.1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively. Approval of the Committee on Disputes permitting the assessee to pursue the appeals before the Tribunal is placed on record for the assessment years in question. Since the point of dispute is common in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are quite narrative and argumentative which is contrary to ITAT. Rules. However, the common issue is that the assessee in all these appeals is aggrieved against inclusion of interest on debentures, bonds and Government securities in the total amount of interest on loans and advances and subjecting it to interest-tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (the Act).3. Assessee, that is, Life...
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!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)LC65Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid appeals arise out of the orders of the Collector (Appeals) listed above against each. All these appeals arise out of the common issue excepting some minor variations which are discussed individually and hence they were heard together and we propose to dispose of through this common order. It is needless to elaborate the facts of the case in detail. The appellants manufacture cotton yarn, non-cellulosic spun yarn and cellulosic yarn and they consume these varieties of yarn captively in the manufacture of fabrics. They had been paying duty on these yarn captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics till the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 16-10-80 reported in 1981 ELT 887 allowed the Writ Petition challenging the levy of Central Excise duty on yarn captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics. Thereafter, the appellants stopped paying duty on yarn captively consumed. The department have taken up the matter by way of SLP before the Supreme Court [It is repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR829; 2003LC898(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT274(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj497
V.C. Daga, J.1. The short question sought to be raised in this petition relates to an interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) which came to be amended with effect from 12th May, 2002.Factual background The factual background giving rise to the present petition is in narrow compass:2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting steel products including galvanized corrugated sheets to 120 countries. In respect of exports affected from time to time, the petitioners filed rebate claims for a rebate of central excise duty paid in respect of the exported goods.3. The present petition is concerned with two shipments of goods which were exported in 1999 and in respect whereof the petitioners claimed rebate. The petitioners exported galvanized corrugated sheets under shipping bills dated 20th May, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 and filed refund claim along with supporting documents to substantiate the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(63)ELT209(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners-Barium Chemicals Limited, and a shareholder of the said company have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : (d) make a declaration that Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 1972 in so far as the same are based on the said section are ultra vires the Constitution of India; (e) issue a direction for determining the value of the goods imported by the first petitioner company on the basis of the value of the like goods under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 after deducting all the expenses that are deductible under Section 4 of that Act; (f) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to load the assessable value by including therein the packing charges or lending charges or by loading any post importation charges including customs duty and surcharge to the value of the goods imported by first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(Bom)441; [2005]278ITR112(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I. T. Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short), Mumbai, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. The assessment year involved is 1980-81.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the machinery and, therefore, the assessee is liable to tax on profits of Rs. 2,13,705 under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is liable to tax on profits under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though depreciation was claimed by the partnership firm which was dissolved and the machinery were allotted to the assessee who sold the same after dissolution of the firm ?'The facts :2. In this case, the assessee was a partne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2005]147TAXMAN676(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. By this reference under section 256(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Income Tax Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal hereinafter referred to as ), Mumbai, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court. The assessment year involved is 1980-81 :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed depreciation on the machinery and, therefore, the assessee is liable to tax on profits of Rs. 2,13,705 under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is liable to tax on profits under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though depreciation was claimed by the partnership firm which was dissolved and the machinery were allotted to the assessee who sold the same after dissolution of the firm?'The Facts:2. In this case, the assessee wa...
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!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 : Mumbai
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. This confirmation case as also the Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2008 arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Special Court (under the N.D.P.S.Act), Greater Mumbai, in N.D.P.S.Case No.60 of 2002. 2. By that order, the learned Sessions Judge found Gulam Mohammad Malik (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused No.1’) guilty for having committed offence under section 8 (c) punishable under section 20(b) (ii) punishable under section 31- A of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the ‘Act’) - for having been previously convicted for the offence punishable under section 8 (c) read with Section 20(b) vide Sessions Case No.01/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himmatnagar, Gujarat State. Consequently, the Special Court sentenced the Accused No.1 to death and ordered that he shall be hanged by neck till death. The execution of the sentence is subject to the confirmation of this Court. The Spe...
Tag this Judgment!