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 : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj6
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment and decree of Bhandari J, sitting single, confirming in second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Jaipur. Leave to appeal has been granted by the learned Judge.2. The appeal relates to a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, The Maharaja Kishangarh Mills Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 3539/7/- from the defendant Municipal Committee, which is the appellant here. The plaintiff alleged that the Municipal Committee Madanganj had borrowed on 9-7-1947 a sum of Rs, 3,000/- and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, after the loan had been duly sanctioned by the Mahkama Khas of the then Kishangarh State. Later the Municipal Committee Madanganj merged in the Municipal Committee Kishangarh and plaintiff averred that, by virtue of the merger, the defendant became liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest.The defendant resisted the claim and its liability to pay the amount; but admitted that in any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1971Raj128
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. 2) against a decree of the District Judge, Kota, dated 25-9-58 decreeing a suit instituted against it and against the Union of India (defendant No. 1) by the Associated Stone Industries Kota (hereinafter referred to as the Company). 2. The relevant facts are that the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Kota entered into an agreement Ex. A on 2-5-45 with the Company for quarrying Kachcha stone from the Tehsils of Ramganj Mandi and Chechat. Monopoly rights for quarrying Kachcha stone in these two tehsils were granted to the Company for a period of 15 years from 1-10-44- The terms and conditions contained in Clause 18 (i) of the agreement ran as under :-- 'In consideration of the concessions and privileges granted by the Grantor and in lieu of income-tax, super-tax and excess profits tax, the Grantee covenant to pay to the Grantor royalty on the stone excavated at the rate of rupee one per 100 sq. ft., subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. The common question which arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether the substances known as Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (for short, L.S.H.S.) and Furnace Oil (for short, F.O.) use in the petitioner's fertilizer plant at Sindri qualifies for total exemption from payment of excise duty, as 'Feed stock' used in the manufacture of fertilizer in the petitioner's plant in terms of exemption notification No. 147 of 1974 dated 30.10.1974.2. In CWJC Nos. 4888 and 4901 of 1987, it has been additionally con-tended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals which were instituted in the purported exercise of power of review under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as amended), since under the amended Section 36, amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, which came into force on 21.08.1980, the provision vesting power in the Central Government to review the decision of the Board, stood repealed.3. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.8291 of 1994. 1 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No.8291 of 1994. Date of decision: September, 2013. *** M/S Nu-Tech Solvex ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. *** 1. Whether the Judgment be reported?.2. Whether the judgment be shown to the reporter.3. Whether a copy of the judgment be given to the reporter. Present: Shri Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajiv Kwatra, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana, for the Respondents. *** DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J1 By way of this petition, writ in the nature of certiorari is sought by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 28.4.1994 (Annexure P-7) vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and consequently benefit of sales tax exemption under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules.) was denied to the petitioner. CWP No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.3224 of 2020 Ebix Singapore Private Limited .... Appellant Versus Committee of Creditors of Educomp .... Respondents Solutions Limited & Anr. With Civil Appeal No.3560 of 2020 Kundan Care Products Limited .... Appellant Versus Mr Amit Gupta and Ors. .... Respondents With Civil Appeal No.295 of 2021 Seroco Lighting Industries Private Limited .... Appellant Versus Ravi Kapoor RP for Arya Filaments .... Respondents Private Limtied & Ors. 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. Further, a Glossary of defined terms which have been used throughout the judgment has also been provided. The sections in the judgment are as follows: Glossary ............................................................................................................ 5 A Civil Appeal No 3224 of 2020 the Ebix Appeal ...................................... 11 A.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(32)ELT131TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India, which has been transferred to the Tribunal, and is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are a partnership concern in the small scale sector engaged in the printing of pure silk sarees falling under Item 20 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were exempt from payment of duty.During the later half of 1980 they started on experimental basis hand printing of viscose sarees without the aid of any machine operated by power of steam. Man-made fabrics fall under Item 22. The appellants submit that they were not using any machine in the printing of these sarees and they were not liable to pay the additional duty of excise in terms of Notification No 179/72, dated 24-4-1972 as amended by Notification No. 298/79, dated 24-11-1979. On 28-11-1980 the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellants and seized 107 art silk sarees valued at Rs. 8,560.00. The appellants explained to the Assistant Collector an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2069; [1975]45CompCas136(SC); (1974)2SCC741; [1975]1SCR890; 1974(6)LC783(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay Varying the judgment and decree passed against respondents 1 to 4 by the District Judge of Nagpur on an application under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 7 of 1913--hereinafter called the Act'.2. It appears that in or about April 1949 the Industrial & Agricultural Engineering Company (C.P.) Ltd.--hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' was formed under the Act with its registered office situated at Nagpur. From the date of the Company's incorporation till August 27, 1952 one Shantilal Nemchand Shah respondent 5 was the Managing Director, while respondents 1 to 4 were the Directors of the Company. On August 27, 1952, respondent 5 resigned as Managing Director and in his place two Directors C.V. Krishnamurthi respondent 2 and M. Ganpatram respondent 3 were appointed DirectOrs. These two new Directors were the employees and Directors of a concern known as Industrial & Agricult...
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!