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 : (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 : (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 : (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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2004)89ITD551(Mum.)
1. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in this appeal: "1. Payment of tax in Foreign Countries on Freight Earning Rs. 9,45,665/-. The learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs 9,45,665/- incurred by the company as income Tax on Foreign Ports on freight earning not following the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. in which case Bombay High Court rejected the reference application of the Department allowing the tax on foreign port as deductible expenditure. The Bombay High Court Judgment is binding on the department (page 4 of the assessment order) Kanga and Palkhiwala's Income Tax Law Book, 8th Edition, Page 701, 1st para and note no. 1 (page 4 of Ass. Order and para 2.2. of CIT(A)'s order). 2. Deduction u/s. 80-I out of Profits Derived from Shipping Business (Rs. 20,00,020/-) The learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in computing deduction u/s 80-I at nil by considering the deduction of allowance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)BomCR673; 2002(1)MhLj301
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 UTI from loans advanced by it stands exempted in view of Section 22 of the UTI Act, 1963? B. If the answer to question No. A is in the negative then whether Communication dated 29-1-2001 withdrawing the letter/ Circular dated 11th October, 1991 issued by 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 UTI to file returns under the Interest Tax Act, 1974? FACTS: 2.On 23rd September 1974, the Parliament enacted Interest Tax Act, 1974. At that time, it applied to Scheduled Banks, IDBI, IFCI, ICICI and Industrial Reconstruction. ...
Tag this Judgment!