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 : (1989)31ITD509(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1976-77.2. The only dispute in this appeal is concerning the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following two grounds have been raised in this appeal: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in entertaining appeal against the ITO's order levying interest Under Section 215 when there are no provisions in the I.T. Act for the same. (2) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 7,33,346 levied Under Section 215.3. An estimate of advance tax was filed at 'nil' on 15-12-1975. The assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 28,88,820.The tax thereon was worked out by the ITO at Rs. 18,19,956. As no advance tax was paid, the ITO had levied an interest under Section 215 at Rs. 7,33,346.4. In an appeal filed against the order of assessment, the assessee, int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR659; [1991]187ITR517(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing and selling textile auxiliaries and other allied chemicals, Paints, etc. For the assessment year 1971-72, along with other claim, the assessee claimed depreciation on its laboratory building worth Rs. 71,024 and depreciation with triple shift allowance on laboratory machinery worth Rs. 2,16,206, these being in the nature of capital items used for scientific research relating to the business of the assessee. Before the Income-tax Officer, it was contended that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on these items under section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though deduction under section 35(1)(iv) and section 32(2)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had already been allowed in the previous years in respect of these items.2. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the ground that as deduction had already been allowed in the previous years under section 35 in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)82ITD158(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the Department are directed against the combined order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 3rd Jan., 1992 for asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1980-81 passed under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). The Department has expressed its grievance by raising the following grounds in its appeals. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in granting depreciation on WDV of Scientific research assets where deduction has been granted under Section 35 of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to the above facts the CIT(A) ought to have considered the amendment to Section 35(2) (iv) of the IT Act with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1962 wherein no depreciation is to be granted under Section 32 where deduction has been granted under Section 35 of the Act." 2. Earlier, the CIT(A), in quantum appeals, had confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on the written down value (WDV) of scientific research assets on which deduction had been allowed un...
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 : (1983)3ITD675(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 17-2-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1978-79, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1978.2. The only ground taken in this appeal states that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the ITO's order granting relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and directing the ITO to recompute the relief in the light of the Supreme Court decision to be delivered in future.3. The assessee is a private limited company. It was entitled to relief under Section 80J. It claimed to calculate such relief on the gross assets without deducting the liabilities as was held in the case of Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 909 (Cal.). The ITO did not agree. He referred to the recent amendment of Section 80J with retrospective effect and calculated the relief on the net assets after deducting the liabilities to third parties. The ITO completed the assessment accord...
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 : (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 : 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 : 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!