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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom231; (1969)71BOMLR801; ILR1971Bom264
Patel, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the suit should have been stayed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A few facts leading to the present appeal are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendants were partners. The suit was filed by the plaintifffor a declaration that the Firm was dissolved and for taking accounts of the partnership. This suit was filed on January 20, 1969. On the same day the plaintiff made an application for receiver and for injunction, An ex parte order was granted appointing the Court Receiver to take charge of all books of accounts, vouchers, papers etc., connected with the partnership and in possession of the mediator, K.M.D. Thakersey. An interim injunction was also granted, one particular direction being In a mandatory form regarding the continuance of the supply of steam from the boiler to the plaintiff. The papers of the motion and the plaint were served on the defendants on the same day. The cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties and looking to the urgency, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Union of India, Department of Health and Family Welfare and particularly styled as “AYUSH” i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. 3. By the said order, the Government of India has refused to grant permission for admitting students to the B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) to the P.G. Course (Post Graduate) in Shalakya for the session 201011. For appreciating the challenge to the impugned order, it would be proper to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 4965/2011. 4. The first petitioner is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 so also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a public charitable trust. The second petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties and looking to the urgency, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the Union of India, Department of Health and Family Welfare and particularly styled as AYUSH i.e. Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. 3. By the said order, the Government of India has refused to grant permission for admitting students to the B.A.M.S. (under Graduate) to the P.G. Course (Post Graduate) in Shalakya for the session 201011. For appreciating the challenge to the impugned order, it would be proper to narrate the facts in Writ Petition No. 4965/2011. 4. The first petitioner is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 so also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a public charitable trust. The second petitioner is a Colleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The question involved in these Writ Petitions is whether the sales made and subject matter of the order of assessment in the first Petition are within the State of Maharashtra so as to be taxable under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short the MVAT Act?) and therefore the action of the Respondents treating it as such can be said to be ex-facie illegal. Since the point involved and summed up above is common to all the Petitions, for the purpose of the present Judgment, we take the facts from Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015. It is undisputed that since the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions is similar, common arguments have been canvassed. Hence, we dispose of all the Writ Petitions by this common Judgment. 3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015 are as under: The Petitioner is registered dealer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and the Central Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(5)BomCR568; 2004(2)MhLj1058
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. The point involved in both the writ petitions is similar in nature and, therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment.4. The respondent Sahebrao Dagaduba Khandwe, r/o Shindephal, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad (respondent in Writ Petition No. 4700 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2003 against the petitioner claiming specific performance of agreement and actual possession of the suit property. Bhagwan Mitharam Chaudhari, r/o Bahadurpura, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon (respondent in writ petition No. 4688 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2003 against the very petitioner claiming specific performance of contract and possession of the suit property. The suit summons in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 77 of 2003 and 76 of 2003 were duly served on the original defendant Prabhakar Mule (petitioner in both the writ petitions)...
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!