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(17)ELT244(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a limited company and has its main office at Calcutta. The petitioner is exporter of textiles and fabrics and is engaged in the manufacture of Art Silk fabrics. Between April 1979 and January 1980, the petitioner imported polyester filament yarn from M/s. Greenland Corporation, Japan. The importation was effected under the cover of valid R.E.P. Licences granted to the petitioner in accordance with the Import Trade (Control) Order, 1955. The licences were issued to the petitioner in the capacity as merchant exporter against export of goods.2. On February 7, 1977, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Banking, issued a notification in exercise of the powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act exempting nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn imported into India from whole of duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The notification requires the importer to comply with certain requirem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)87BOMLR167; (1985)45CTR(Bom)180; [1985]155ITR637(Bom); [1985]20TAXMAN4(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Mr. M. C. Chagla, former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, passed away on February 9, 1981, leaving behind a will dated January 5, 1978, appointing the petitioners - his two sons - as the executors of the said will. The deceased, at the time of his death, owned a flat being 'C' Block on the third floor of 'Pallonji Mansion', 43, Cuffe Parade, Bombay, and was residing there along with petitioner No. 2 and his family members. The building in which the flat is situated was constructed in the year 1936 and the land on which the building is erected is the Government leasehold land, the lease being for a duration of 99 years commencing from February 12, 1935. Mr. Chagla was in occupation of the flat as a tenant from the year 1961 till the year 1971, and the contractual rent paid was Rs. 270 per month. In the year 1971, the tenants with the consent of the owners formed a housing co-operative society and the deceased who was one of the tenants joined the society and became t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT198Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III. The as-sessees are aggrieved by - (a) denial of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E, dated 27-5-1978 to Tankmastic although the classification claimed under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 2715.90 as "cut back bitumen" has been accepted, (b) denial of benefit of Notification No. 35/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986, to the products CPRX compound and Shalikote T-10, T-12, T-14 & T-25, (a) extension of benefit of the above Notification to Tarfelt BH, BS, DC & Tarfelt Scrap, although the claim for classification of these products under CET sub-heading 5909.00 has not been accepted and the goods have been classified under CET sub-heading 5906.90, (b) extension of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E. to Tankmastic and Shalitex Primer, (c) extension of benefit of Notification No. 126/78-C.E. to Shalibond BS and Shalibond CS, and (d) extension of benefit of Notification No. 35/86-C.E. to Shalik...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(4)BomCR254; [1989(58)FLR149]; (1995)IIILLJ797Bom; 1988MhLJ928
1. The petitioners are the Life Insurance Corporation of India while Respondents No. 1 and 2 are All India Insurance Employees' Association and All India LIC Employees' Federation, respectively. 2. The petitioners have challenged in this writ petition an Award dated 31.1.1986 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Bombay in Reference No. CGIT-11 of 1983. Under an order dated 29.10.1983 the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. l, Bombay constituted under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was: 'Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay in closing the cadre of Superintendent (Admn.), Superintendent (Typing pool), Superintendent (Adrema) and Superintendent (Machine) and in denying promotional avenues to the section Heads/Higher grade assistants in all th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)(26)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal No. S/49-139/84-GC dated 22.12.84 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a small compass. The appellant N.M. Jagda alias Babubhai Soni at the material time was carrying on busines as the certified goldsmith. The Central Excise officers of Junagadh Division searched the appellant's premises and seized gold ornaments weighing 269 grams valued at Rs. 39,000/-and also certain documents on 11.6.83. The Additional Collector of Central Excise held the enquiry and ordered confiscation of the gold ornaments valued at Rs. 39,000/- but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 39,000/- and he also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/-by his order dated 3.7.84. The Additional Collector also cancelled,the certified goldsmith's licence.3. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellants preferred an appeal before this Tribunal on 1.10.84. It appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)38ITD596(Mum.)
1. Under the Surtax Act, these three appeals by the assessee involve one common point. For the sake of facility, therefore, they are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. On the inter-corporate dividend, assessee was allowed deduction under Section 0M and the point involved is that in terms of Clause (viii) of Rule 1 of First Schedule, of the Surtax Act, the gross dividend income should be excluded or only that part which is included in the total income for income-tax purposes. It may be noted that in terms of Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 60% of the gross dividend income is allowed as deduction and the balance 40% only is included in the total income. The corresponding figures for these three years are furnished by the assessee as follows: Departmental authorities have excluded only the 40% of the dividend income, which is included in the total income, while assessee's claim is mat the whole of the gross dividend should be so treated as covered by Rule 1 (viii) of the First Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Through this present application, the Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay prays for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which has been registered under No. CD 612/86. The Principal Collector's appeal is against the Order No. 5/49-409/85 CC dated 17-7-85 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, under which he allowed the Respondent's appeal and held that the consignment of boilers and accessories imported by the respondents for being supplied to M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. for erecting a captive power generation plant for them, was eligible to the lower rate of Customs duty under Notification No. 71/85 Cus. dated 17-3-85. Since the Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay was of the view that the imported goods were not meant for power projects which were covered by Notification No. 71/85-Cus. dated 17-3-85, he filed an appeal to the Tribunal against the aforesaid order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals); and this has been registered under CD(SB)(WR) 612/...
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 : [1991]190ITR128(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is an application by the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions sought to be raised are :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was -(a) justified in taking the view that the authorities relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order under section 154 are not of any assistance to the Revenue and having regard to the clear language in section 154(7), the impugned order passed under section 154 is without jurisdiction and thus setting aside the rectification order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?(b) justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had re-examined the question on facts which is not contemplated under section 154 and thus accepting the assessee's contention on merits ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1973-74. The question involved is regarding computation of deduction under ...
Tag this Judgment!