Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This Income Tax Reference arises out of RA Nos.1052 and 1053/Bom/1991 which, in turn, arise out of ITA Nos.5033 and 5034/B/1986, which were disposed of by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9th January, 1991, and pertain to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2.(A) The Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: “Assessment year : 1981-82 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Japanese Yen 2,973,750 paid to Toyo Engineering Corporation was chargeable to tax in India? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the sum payable was “Industrial or Commercial Profits” within the meaning of the Article III of the DTAA between India and Japan and was, therefore, not liable to be taxed in India, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This Income Tax Reference arises out of RA Nos.1052 and 1053/Bom/1991 which, in turn, arise out of ITA Nos.5033 and 5034/B/1986, which were disposed of by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9th January, 1991, and pertain to assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 2.(A) The Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Assessment year : 1981-82 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Japanese Yen 2,973,750 paid to Toyo Engineering Corporation was chargeable to tax in India? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the sum payable was Industrial or Commercial Profits within the meaning of the Article III of the DTAA between India and Japan and was, therefore, not liable to be taxed in India, the assessee having had n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR334(Bom)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. In this reference as many as 10 questions have been referred to this court for its opinion, some at the instance of the assessee and some at the instance of the department and the basic or primary facts out of which these several questions arise may be stated thus : There is a public limited company called the Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., which carries on the business of supplying electrical energy, originally to Bulsar, Bhiwandi and Belgaum. On 1st April, l951, it took over two other electric supply companies known as Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and Jalgaon Electric Supply Co. Ltd. under separate amalgamation agreements sanctioned by this court by two orders dated 20th July, 1951. Copies of the orders sanctioning the amalgamation together with agreements of amalgamation in the case of each have been annexed as annexure 'A' to the statement of the case. The Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. also purchased the undertakings with all the assets minus certain asset...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR207; 2002(84)ECC46; 2002(142)ELT319(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Board for short) dated 7-4-1998 and consequent show cause notice dated 10-8-1998 alleging therein that the Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Century Rayon has wilfully suppressed the fact of manufacture of 'Cinder' with an intention to evade payment of excise duty (duty for short) and evaded duty to the tune of Rs. 12,39,350/- and why the same be not recovered from them with penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short) framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act for short).FACTS IN BRIEF:The 1st petitioners herein are the Division of Century Textile Industries Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods, having its factory, inter alia, at Shahad, Taluka - Kalyan, Dist. Thane. The 2nd petitioner is the Vice President (Finance) of the first Petitioner/Company.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2006]130CompCas295(Bom); [2006(106)FLR551]
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused.2. Shri V.S. Khatre who was the manager of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a complaint under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), against accused No. 1 which, according to him was an establishment under the Act having been allotted Code No. 32-28-67 and against accused No. 2 who was director and occupier of the said establishment named M/s. Cortalim Shipyard and Engineers P. Ltd.3. The complaint was filed for the failure to pay the contributions for the wage periods of October, 1992, to May, 1993, which were payable in terms of regulations 31, 39, and 40 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950.4. The complaint was filed after the sanction was accorded by the Regional Director of the said Corporation.5. Although the sanction was obtained to prosecute the principal employer, i.e., A2 and the said establishment M/s. Cortal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP.2. On 4.3.2007, Police Inspector Sanjay Pawar, attached to the Haweli Police Station, Pune, got information that 300 to 400 youngsters were enjoying a party called 'Rave Party' on the land of one Chandrakant Hagawane, police raided that place and some persons were arrested. The present petitioner was accused No. 4. A plastic bag containing Ganja and 15 grams of Charas were allegedly found with him. The weight of Ganja is not given. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police under different provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') against 15 persons. The accused Nos. 8 to 15 were discharged by the Court. By order dated 4.10.2008, the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Pune,directed to frame different charges against different accused. The learned Judge directed to frame charge against accused Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR462; 2007(3)BomCR98; (2007)109BOMLR559; [2007]79SCL583(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The 1st Petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, is engaged inter alia in the business of assignment of life insurance policies issued by the 1st respondent. The 2nd petitioner is the Director and shareholder of 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent is the statutory corporation established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Life Insurance Act. The respondent No. 2 is the statutory authority established under Section 3 of the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority Act, 1999 which hereinafter shall be referred to as IRDA. According to the petitioners, their business involves acquiring life insurance policies from the policy holders by paying value consideration to the policy holder. An Insurance policy would be assigned by the policy holder to the 1st petitioner in lieu of valid consideration. The assignment will be registered and recorded in the books of the 1st respondent. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2507
J.N. Patel, J.1. Appeal No. 844 of 2007 is filed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against Reliance Natural Resources Limited and Appeal No. 1 of 2008 is filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) against Reliance Industries Limited, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge on 15th October, 2007 in the matter of Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited against Reliance Industries Limited. As the two appeals filed by the parties to the application are filed impugning the judgment and order of the learned Company Judge, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.Factual Matrix2. The Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 came to be filed in Company Petition No. 731 of 2005 by Reliance Natural Resources Limited seeking appropriate orders and direction of the Company Judge for effective implementation of the scheme as a result of decision of the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 71 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR663; (2008)110BOMLR1730
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the process adopted by the Respondent No. 3 beginning with the Expression of Interest and followed by issuance of Request for Proposal and culminating in the award of contract initially to Respondent No. 4 and then to the Respondent No. 5. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office in New Mumbai. According to the Petitioner No. 1, it is engaged in the business of operating and running duty Free Retail Outlets in International Airports in India. The Respondent No. 1 is the union of India and the Respondent No. 2 is Airports Authority of India constituted under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 is owned and controlled by the Respondent No. 1. The International Airport at Mumbai i.e. Chhatrapati Shivaji International...
Tag this Judgment!