Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)37ITD293(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The appellant herein is a non-resident banking company. The appellant has substantially raised three grounds in the present appeal which are dealt with seriatim.3. The first ground is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant's claim under Section 20 of the Act for deduction of proportionate expenses reasonably expended to earn interest on securities while computing income chargeable under the head "interest on securities" and thereby enhancing the disallowances under Sections 37 and 40A(5) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) has dealt with this issue in para-2 of his order. It was the case of the appellant before the CIT (Appeals) that the ITO should have apportioned the gross expenditure between its two sources of income assessable under the head "interest on securities" and the head "profits and gains from business" and thereafter made disallowance under Section 40A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)44ITD231(Mum.)
1. These eleven appeals are by the assessee against the orders of the Dy. CIT(A) for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1979-80, confirming the penalties levied by the ITO, under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The position of filing of the returns, the due dates and the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, is as under:Asst.Date of filing Due date Notice under sectionYear of return 148 issued on.1969-70 01-03-1978 30-06-69 10-03-1979 In response to the show-cause notices, the assessee stated before the ITO that his quantum appeals were pending before the Tribunal and, requested that the proceedings be kept pending till the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal. As the limitation for levying the penalty was expiring on 31-3-1987, the ITO did not grant time to the assessee and levied penalties for various amounts, aggregating to Rs. 1,56,860 for the periods of delay, after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)45ITD473(Mum.)
1. These are appeals by the department and cross appeals by the assessee. For the sake of convenience the appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this common order.There is an appeal by the department and one by the assessee. The appeals relate to assessment year 1982-83.3. Assessee is a limited company engaged in construction work. It had secured from the Government of Maharashtra a plot of land No. 211 at Nariman Point on lease and had started construction a multi-storeyed building from 1978. Initially, the booking rate per square feet was Rs. 130. This was raised to Rs. 140 and Rs. 150 and much later the sale fetched as high an amount as Rs. 612 per sq. ft. Assessee was following the project completion method of accounting and filed the return for the year under appeal disclosing an income of Rs. 35,39,408. It has to be remembered in this connection that there was a raid at the premises of the assessee and in the course of the raid a table diary maintained by one Shri R.T. Shar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)73ITD123(Mum.)
1. The assessee is a company. It was granted certificate of Registration No. 23334 of 1980, by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, on 24-10-1980. Photocopy of the Certificate of Incorporation is provided at page 6 of the paper compilation filed on behalf of the assessee. As per the Certificate commencement of business was granted to the assessee dated 25th November, 1980, a copy of which is provided at page 7 of the paper compilation, and accordingly the assessee commenced its business. The company is a public limited company. Its business is that of investment and trading in shares by way of speculation and ready shares. M/s. H. B. Financial Consultants Pvt.Ltd., H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi was the Managers to issue of equity shares of 170000 at Rs. 10 each for cash at par. The registered office of the assessee was at 1111-A, Raheja Chambers, 213, Backbay Reclamation Scheme, Nariman Point, Bombay - 400 021. The authorised share capital was Rs. 30,00,000 divided into 3,00,000 eq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)12ITD201(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the revenue objects to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing a sum of Rs. 21,016 as business expenditure. On 29-3-1946, an immovable property was acquired on behalf of the Indore Mill Owners Association through its President, Sir Seth Hukamchand Sarupchand Kt., and the Vice President, Rai Bahadur Rajya Bhushan Seth Kanhaiyalal Nandlal Bhandari. According to the sale deed dated 29-3-1946 at pages 27 to 32 of the appellant's paper book, this property was purchased on behalf of the said association, which was not yet a registered corporation but which consisted of seven incorporated and registered companies under the Indore Companies Act, 1914. The assessee-company, the Hukamchand Mills Ltd., Indore, is the first company mentioned therein. It appears that these seven companies formed themselves into an association called the Indore Mill Owners Association and by resolution No. 1 dated 2-1-1946 resolved that the said association should buy all the property de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
PC : 1. The Appeal, in which the Chamber Summons has been taken out, arises from a decision of a learned Single Judge dated 15 December 2010 dismissing a Miscellaneous Petition seeking : (i) revocation or annulment of an order dated 20 November 2003 authorizing and permitting the Respondent to continue as an Administrator of the estate of E.F.Dinshaw; and (ii) the appointment of a fit and proper person as an Administrator. The appeal has been admitted and is placed on board for hearing and final disposal. The Chamber Summons has been taken out under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`the Code') for allowing the Appellant to produce additional evidence consisting of fifteen documents of which a list has been appended as a schedule to the Chamber Summons. 2. When the Chamber Summons came up for hearing on 1 August 2012, this Court noted in its order that save and except for a bald averment in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the affidavit-in-support to the effect that the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
PC : 1. The Appeal, in which the Chamber Summons has been taken out, arises from a decision of a learned Single Judge dated 15 December 2010 dismissing a Miscellaneous Petition seeking : (i) revocation or annulment of an order dated 20 November 2003 authorizing and permitting the Respondent to continue as an Administrator of the estate of E.F.Dinshaw; and (ii) the appointment of a fit and proper person as an Administrator. The appeal has been admitted and is placed on board for hearing and final disposal. The Chamber Summons has been taken out under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`the Code') for allowing the Appellant to produce additional evidence consisting of fifteen documents of which a list has been appended as a schedule to the Chamber Summons. 2. When the Chamber Summons came up for hearing on 1 August 2012, this Court noted in its order that save and except for a bald averment in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the affidavit-in-support to the effect that the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Writ petition No.2102 of 2006 is filed by the employee challenging the order dated 20th July 2004 passed by the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.236 of 1994 directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner original complainant with continuity of service but without back wages or they can pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner complainant excluding his legal dues. The same order is challenged by the respondent company by preferring cross writ petition No.2272 of 2006. The issues involved in both these petitions are same. Hence, this is a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the employee Atul Pansare hereinafter will be referred to as the petitioner and the Hindustan Lever Ltd. as the respondent. 3. The petitioner joined the respondent company on 10th October 1982 as an Instrumentation Mechanic. After some time, the respondent company declared lockout on 25th June 1988 which continued upto ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)3ITD633(Mum.)
1. The Special Bench was constituted to consider the following important question which arises from the cross objection of the assessee: Whether the provisions of Section 144B which are introduced in the I.T. Act, 1961 with effect from 1-1-1976 are applicable to all pending assessment proceedings or whether they are applicable only to the proceedings for assessment years 1976-77 and onwards? The assessment year involved is 1974-75. The assessee, a firm, had filed their first return on 5-8-1974. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO, after hearing the assessee, made out a draft assessment order and referred the same to the IAC under Section 144B on 29-3-1977. The assessee filed his objections on 12-4-1977. The IAC, after hearing the assessee, gave his directions which were received by the ITO on 23-9-1977. The assessment was completed later. The assessee's case is that the provisions of Section 144B, under which the ITO made the reference to the IAC, are not applicable s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)22ITD111(Mum.)
1. These six appeals relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1973-74 and arise out of the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. In the following table relevant dates of the original assessment orders, reassessment orders and the penalty orders are given :Assessment Date of Date of Date of Year original reassessment Penalty1968-69 21.1.1969 26.3.1979 31.3.19811969-70 8.10.1969 26.3.1979 31.3.19811970-71 18.1.1972 26.3.1979 31.3.19811971-72 18.1.1972 26.3.1979 31.3.19811972-73 19.1.1973 26.3.1979 31.3.19811973-74 31.10.1973 26.3.1979 31.3.1981 In the original assessment orders, the value of the flat at "El-Cid" Building at 13, Ridge Road, Bombay-6 including garage was taken at Rs. 1,39,000 for the first four assessment years and at Rs. 1,94,550 for the remaining two assessment years on the basis of the valuation made by the registered valuer. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated on 9.8.1974 under Section 17 of the We...
Tag this Judgment!