Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)10ITD163(Mum.)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these three appeals together since the issue to be decided is the same, viz., whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80V of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') of the interest debited to his account in the books of the firm in which he is a partner.2. The assessee is an individual. He was a partner in the firm M.C.Ghia & Co. His personal account in the firm has been treated somewhat like a current account. His income receipts are credited in that account. So too his drawings and payment of taxes. The partnership deed did not stipulate that partners would be debited with interest.Nevertheless, interest has been charged on the debit balances. The accounting years are the financial years. For the year ending 31-3-1976, summary of the account shows :Balance brought forward 16,32,856 Deposits 85,693Withdrawals 1,79,535 Share of profit 28,311Interest 1,47,257 3. For the other two accounting years also, the position was the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT76TriDel
1. This appeal dated 24-7-1982 to the Central Board of Excise Customs, under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against Order-in-Original C. No. V/32/ 15/1/81 Cx. Adj. I dated 5-5-1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal in terms of Section 35P(2) of the said Act.2. The facts of the case as set out in the Order-in-Original are that on 10-2-1981, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventive, visited the factory of the appellants, who held licence L. 4 No. 1/73 (electric bulbs) and perused the accounts and sales invoices of the goods cleared. Certain invoices issued to M/s. Revathi Agencies for the sale of electric bulbs, bearing the brand names 'BIJLITE' and 'REVLITE' were found ; and it was also noticed that the value of these bulbs was not included, while computing the exemption limit of Rs. 5 lakhs in terms of Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978 and No. 80/80, dated 19-6-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT73TriDel
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to this Tribunal the same is being treated as an appeal and being disposed of accordingly.2. For a proper appreciation of the issues involved, it is necessary to. briefly set out the facts of the case. The appellants, M/s. Joy Foam (P) Ltd., Madras imported one production line for manufacturing of flexible polyure-thane foam consisting of one Center CF-4 Foaming machine alongwith some spare parts. The appellants declared to total C.I.F. value for the said goods as NKR 4,46,800 equivalent to Rs. 7,29,967/-. The appellants had declared this value with reference to the proforma invoice dated 26-6-79 received by them from the foreign suppliers which was in, conformity with the invoice dated 23-11-79 under cover of which the import was made. During the course of finalising the assessment, the assessing officer wanted to refer to the technical literature and the price list, if any, for the said good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)10ITD311(Mum.)
1. These two appeals, one relating to the assessment year 1974-75 and another relating to the assessment year 1975-76, filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals), deal with the same issue and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is a private limited company. The ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings found that the dividends distributed by the company within 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous year were Rs. 6,500 for the assessment year 1974-75 and Rs. 3,07,800 for the assessment year 1975-76. The ITO held that considering the capital gains, on sale of land, which amounted to Rs. 12,90,988 for the assessment year and Rs. 38,40,479 for the assessment year 1975-76, the dividends distributed by the company fell short of the statutory percentage. The ITO did not accept the claim pf the assessee-company that the capital gains should not be included in the commercial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (1984)10ITD193(Bang.)
1. The appeal is by the revenue, The ITO made an assessment on Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) for the assessment year 1978-79 as agents of Dunlop Ltd. By an order under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), passed on 10-3-1981, the ITO held HAL were to be treated as agents of Dunlop Ltd., England. During the course of the proceedings under Section 163, HAL challenged the ITO's right to appoint them as agents of Dunlop Ltd. They urged that the payments made by them towards technical assistance fees and royalty were exempt from tax and do not come under the purview of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The ITO held that it was sufficient if the non-resident had received some income from or through the Indian company in order to attract the provisions of Section 163 and so long as this fact was not in dispute HAL cannot escape its liability to be treated as an agent of the non-resident. He also held that the question regarding the liability of the non-resident to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT310TriDel
1. This is an undated application for rectification by M/s Entremonde Polycoaters Private Limited, seeking certain amendments in the order of this Tribunal No. 389/83-C dated 20-12-83 (Appeal No. 369/78-C).Considerable arguments were put forward by the learned counsel for M/s.Entremonde to show that there had been errors on the face of the record which requird rectification. The main error which the learned counsel said had taken place in the Tribunal's order was that a coloured sheet of plastic had been laminated to the sheet of paper to produce the coloured sheet of paper. This is not apparent from any fact in the proceedings that had gone before the lower authorities. The process of manufacture was that coloured plastic was applied as a coating to the paper and this gave an appearance of colour to the paper. It is, therefore, not correct to say that a sheet of coloured plastic had been stuck to the paper to give it a coloured appearance.2. He disputed the statement that the base pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1984)10ITD659(Hyd.)
1. These three appeals are preferred by the assessee and they relate to the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. For the sake of convenience, the appeals are considered together and are disposed of by this order since common contentions are involved.2. The assessee is a company. The accounting period is the calendar year preceding the relevant assessment year. In each of the appeals the assessee contests the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the validity of proceedings taken under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee entered into an agreement with Wood Auto Suppliers Ltd. of the United Kingdom (English Company) dated 5-7-1962. The English Company were manufacturers of armatures, field coils, etc., which were being sold by them in India under the name of Wood Auto. The assessee had acted as agents of the English Company in the past as seen from the agreement. The assessee sought to have the benefit of technical assistance from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(45)ELT664TriDel
1. The appellant, Sesu Trading Corporation, had, in the course of its business, imported Cocoa Powder (unblended and unflavoured) and had been called upon to pay Countervailing Duty thereon in spite of objecting thereto. Their claim for refund, contending that no such Contervailing Duty was payable, relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Cadbury Fry (India) Limited v. Union of India and Ors.(Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 1404 of 1975) had been rejected by the Assistant Collector and the appeals therefrom have been rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). It is against the said orders that these two Revision Petitions have been preferred to the Govt. of India and, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, the said Revision Petitions have been transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as appeals.2. Shri V. Subramaniam, Proprietor of the appellant, appeared on behalf of the appellant and the Respondent was represented by Shri Vineet Ohri, SDR. Both...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1984)10ITD182(Hyd.)
1. These two departmental appeals arise out of the common order of the AAC in the case of Shri Ratanlal Bhangadia of Hyderabad for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. The assessee is an individual and had filed return on 3-12-1979 declaring business loss under acknowledgement No. 001345. He filed a revised return on 31-3-1980 under acknowledgement No. 002263. This claim of the assessee made before the ITO has not been controverted by the ITO and has been accepted by the first appellate authority. This factual finding is not disputed before us. It, however, appears that the returns were not traceable at the office and that, therefore, no action was taken thereon. It was the assessee's claim that he was entitled to a set off of loss of Rs. 1,22,781 as relating to the assessment year 1978-79 against his share income from Hyderabad Trading Co.3. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the loss was not determined. The first appellate authority, however, found that the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(18)ELT49TriDel
1. These two appeals relate to the export of "linters" through Bhavnagar port in September, 1980. The Customs authorities levied export duty on the two consignments, treating them as "raw cotton" falling under Item 16 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act (Export Tariff Schedule). The appellants contended that linters were not raw cotton and that export duty, was not payable. Their claim in this regard having been rejected by the Assistant Collector, they went in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, who also rejected their appeals. It is against these rejections that the present appeals (one of which has been filed directly to the Tribunal and the other, having been filed as a revision application to the. Central Government, has been transferred to the Tribunal) are directed.2. The matter was argued before us on behalf of the appellants by. Shri S.B. Jijina, Advocate, assisted by Shri D. Krishnamurti and Shri N.C.Sogani, Consultants.3. Shri Jijina submitted...
Tag this Judgment!