Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)36ITD508(Mum.)
1. The appeal by the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are against the order of the CIT(A), for the assessment year 1983-84.2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in the Federal Republic of Germany, hereinafter referred to as Daimler Benz. It had entered into an agreement on 16-1-1970 with M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited ('Telco') whereby, under Clause 2(a), the former licensed the latter to manufacture direct injection diesel engine, type OM 352 and spare parts thereof. Clause 2(b) widens the scope of the licence to manufacture any other products, namely, new complete models of Daimler-Benz commercial vehicles and/or parts thereof, on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. Clause 3(a) defines the nature of licence. It provides- 3(a) Daimler-Benz undertake to furnish to Telco all technical information, drawings, designs, manufacturing data, test reports and other information available with Daimler-Benz (except such documents and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)72ITD1(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd., for the assessment year 1992-93, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1992. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, salt and detergents in its factories. This appeal arises out of the assessment order passed by the Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range I, Bombay, on 24-3-1995, under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 76,84,31,176.2. The first ground is directed against the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(m) of the Income-tax Act, while computing the profits and gains of the business. The total claim of interest was Rs. 81,24,20,861, which was made in the revised return. The break-up of the claim is as below : Division 1,66,83,137 36,80,38,952 86,42,54,952(c) Gross Interest (a + b) 86,42,54,952(d) Less : Interest and out of borrowed funds 5,18,34,091(e) Net Interest claimed as 81,24,20,861 deduction In the assessment pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
CONTENTS A. Background............................................................................. 3 B. Facts....................................................................................... 8 C. The Plaintiffs Case on Facts .................................................18 D. The Public/Private Divide.................................................... 20 The ASCI Cases................................................................. 20 Nagle v Feilden................................................................... 22 Public Law v Private Law: Blurring Boundaries?.................. 29 E. The Public/Private Divide and the Limits of Judicial Interference ...............................................31 F. The BDB S Defence............................................................. 43 G. Conclusion And Order.......................................................... 50 A. BACKGROUND 1. The four Plaintiffs impeach the Defendant s notice dated 1st August 2015 communicating to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. This is a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The notice of motion seeks a temporary injunction in respect of use by the Defendant of the mark LIVE IN in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing. 2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in 1992, Hybo-Hindustan, a partnership firm and a sister concern of the Plaintiff (which was formerly known as Microtex India Ltd.), conceived and adopted the mark LIVE-IN in respect of jeans, apparel and clothing. Ever since 1992, Hybo-Hindustan has been using the mark on jeans inter alia through the Plaintiff as a permitted user of the former. It is submitted that Hybo-Hindustan has continued to exercise control and supervision over the Plaintiff's use of the mark and that the mark LIVE-IN has been continuously and openly used by the Plaintiff since then. It is claimed that the Plaintiff's products under the particular trade mark are presently sold through a distribution network of 2600 multi brand outlets and 30 distributors. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)(15)ECC189
1. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. have filed this appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order No.A-1236/B-II-137/82 dated 5-8-1982 [F. No. V-2(15A) 1659/79] passed by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay under which he confirmed the order No. V (15A) 2-3/77/7631 dated 14-8-1979 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Division T demanding duty amounting to Rs. 5,49,925.04 under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd., Bhandup, Bombay-78.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. are manufacturers of paints and varnishes and for the manufacture of these items they require resins which they procure either from the market or by direct import from abroad. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd, also manufacture certain types of synthetic resins from the materials purchased locally or imported which are classifiable under item 15A of the central excise tariff. They had obtained per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)12ITD451(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are filed by A-Z (Industrial) Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and by Shri N.M. Virwani, against the order of acquisition passed by the competent authority under Section 269F(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), dated 24-2-1984 acquiring property consisting of leasehold land measuring 17,199 sq. yards along with structures constructed thereon bearing C.S. No. 1/265, 267, 439, 440, 2/267 and 3/267 of Lower Parel Division,, Bombay.2. The facts relating to these appeals are that by an indenture of lease dated 21-5-1966, Amrut Banaspati Com. Ltd., a company limited under the Companies Act, 1956, leased to Virwani Construction Co., a proprietary concern of Shri N.M. Virwani ('the lessee'), a piece and parcel of vacant land measuring in the aggregate 17,199 sq. yards equivalent to 14,380 sq. metres situated at Fergusson Road, Parel, Bombay, for a period of 98 years from 21-5-1966 subject to payment of a monthly rental of Rs. 35,258. In pursuance of this lease a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1990)32ITD68(Mum.)
1. The assessee, a resident individual, and the Revenue are in appeals involving assessment years 1982-83,1983-84 and 1984-85 for which the respective valuation dates are 31-3-1982, 31-3-1983 and 31-3-1984.Since these are cross-appeals arising out of the common order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), Central-II, Bombay, at our level also, these are being decided by this common order. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether annuity policies are/constitute, taxable wealth of the assessee and if so what should be the valuation thereof; and (ii) Royalty in the hands of the assessee is taxable asset/wealth or not and if sovaluation thereof - what should be.2. Parties have been heard at length on two dates viz., 10-8-1988 and 25-8-1988. Orders of the learned lower authorities have been duly noted. The assessee has placed on our file photostat copy of a 'Policy' issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India as also assessee's Advocate's letter da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This Special Bench of the Tribunal has been constituted to decide the following question : " Whether the expenses in the nature of free samples distributed by a pharmaceutical company to the members of the medical profession are to be regarded as expenses on 'advertisement, publicity and sales promotion ' within the meaning of Section 37(3A)/(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. It is the principal question in the appeal of the appellant-assessee and those of the interveners.3. Briefly stated, the business of the assessee is to manufacture and sell medicines. In the course of that business, they distribute samples of their products free of charge to doctors through their representatives who record in certain forms information regarding their use by the doctor and his experience in that regard.4. The Income-tax Officer made a partial disallowance of the expenditure under Section 37(3A) and 3(B) in respect of these samples claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. This appeal is preferred on behalf of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. The assessee has filed the cross objection assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on certain grounds. Since the appeal and the cross objection were heard together, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order. We, however, prefer to adjudicate them one by one.2. Through this appeal, the revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in: (1) directing the assessing officer to give deduction of Rs. 2,83,33,333 under Section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself is basically a trader and does not have any manufacturing facility/activity and also without appreciating the fact that the liabilities of excise, Modvat, sales tax etc., in respect of the production, cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the parties state and agree that the common issues of law and fact arise in this batch of petitions and therefore, it will be appropriate if the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the parties further state and agree that the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 may be adverted to, as the same are representative of the facts in this batch of petitions. Accordingly, this batch of petitions is being disposed of by common judgment and order by reference to the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 for sake of convenience. 3. The challenge in each of these petitions is to the orders (impugned orders) made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The impugned orders have directed the State Government to consider the cases of the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!