Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)LC538Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal of the Collector (Appeals) No. PCJ-101/BRD/94, dated 14-6-1994 rejecting the appellants' appeal. The appellants, despite the fact that their value of clearances did not exceed the specified limits for exemption under Notification 175/86, paid duty by mistake in respect of clearances effected under GP 113 dated 25-3-1989, which they claimed by way of refund and the said refund claim, reportedly filed within time, was allowed by the Assistant Collector. The cheque dated 20-11-1989 was issued on 18-12-1989 to the appellants. However on 4-5-1990 a SCN was issued to them for recovery of the refund erroneously granted because the duty burden has already been passed on by the appellants to the consumers and the refund granted would cause unjust enrichment to them. The appellants resisted the notice by citing various case laws submitting that there is no provision in the statute for denial of refund on this ground and it is not open to review t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1992)43ITD154(Mum.)
1. These are seven appeals, four by the assessee relating to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 and three by the Department relating to assessment years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81.All these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order. These are appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 24-6-1986 for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81. The issue concerns the leviability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which for the relevant years amounted to Rs. 3,42,000; Rs. 2,20,470; Rs. 2.16,000 and Rs. 2,32,000 respectively. In para 3 of his order, the CIT(A) has given details of returned income, assessed income, concealed income and the penalties levied for the 4 years. The facts leading to the levy of these penalties are briefly as follows.2. The assessee is a film artist. She had offered an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 for taxation under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in 1971.Thereafter, on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR168; 1992CriLJ3064
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-8-1987 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha, in a Special Case No. 3/77, convicting the appellant/accused along with accused No. 1 Bhaiyaji Bhagwat, for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for one year; also convicted along with accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 465 and 471 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year. 2. The appellant/accused was charge-sheeted and tried along with two others, viz. Bhaiyaji son of Laxman Bhagwat, Divisional Forest Officer, Arvi and Rajeshwar son of Murlidhar Kajale, Range Clerk, Arvi, for the offence punishable under section 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 468, 465...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. As there was difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Bench, the hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has nominated me to express my opinion on the following point of difference: Whether provisions of Section 67A of the I.T. Act, 1961 can be invoked for computing total income of the assessee, who is a company, is a member of association of persons or body of individual, wherein the shares of the members are determinate and known? 2. The facts relevant to the question mentioned above, arc in short compass. The assessee was a member of an Association of Persons (AOP) namely, India Auto Ancillary Trust (IAAT). The said AOP declared loss for the year under consideration and the share of loss in the hands of the assessee was computed at Rs. 12,89,911/- being 7.69% of the total loss since the stake of the assessee in the AOP was 7.69%. The assessee claimed the set off for the above share of loss against the income computed under other heads. Such claim was m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. 1. These Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. The first issue involved in these Petitions is whether in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private School of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India (2012)6 SCC 1)the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short the Education Act) are applicable to the unaided minority schools not receiving aid or grants to meet the whole or part of its expenses from the Appropriate Government or the Local Authority. If the answer to the said question is affirmative, the second question involved is whether the Schools subject matter of these Petitions are the unaided minority schools. 2. Under Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Education Act, an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local Authority is under an obligation to admit in Class-I, to the extent of at ...
Tag this Judgment!