Gujarat Court October 1980 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Karjan Co-op. Cotton Sale, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Guj)185; [1981]129ITR821(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. In this case , at the instance of the revenue, the following two question have been referred to us for our opinio : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the commission charges of Rs. 27,383 received by the assessee from its mmembers were exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Incommme -tax Act, 196 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,46,838 being interest, godown charges, insurance charges and the amount of Rs. 8,284 being rebate on insurance charges, represented recoveries attributable to the activities of marketing of the agricultural produce of the members and were exempt under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. The assessment year under reference is 1970-71, the relevant previous year being the year ending 31 st October, 1969. The assessee is a co-operative society constituted und...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v Vs. Dilip Engineering Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Guj)213; [1981]129ITR688(Guj)
Majmudar J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-V, Ahmedabad, got two questions of law referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench `B'. The referred questions are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to clauses 9, 12 and 13 of the partnership deed dated 18th November, 1966, the finding of the Tribunal that addition of Rs. 14,924 as profit under section 41(2) of the Act was not justified is correct in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of machinery and land received by the partners as per the terms of the partnership deed on retirement, is not a transfer which attracted the provision of section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as under. The assessee is a partnership firm styled as M/s. Dilip Engineering Works. It operated in Udyognaga...
Laxmichand Hirjibhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Guj)181; [1981]128ITR727(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that even after assessing the partner of the firm, the firm could be taxed as unregistered firm under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the circular was not binding on the Income-tax Officer, and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit thereof ?' The facts leading to this reference are as follows : We are concerned with the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant previous year being Samvat year 2023. The assessee before us is a partnership firm. The assessee-firm consisted of four partners, namely, Laxmichand Hirjibhai, Amratlal Mavjibhai, Ratilal Mavjibhai and Ramjibhai Mavjibhai. All the four partners had equal shares. Up to the assessment ye...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR633(Guj)
Majmudar, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, has got two question of law referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', for our opinion as per the provision of s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The referred question read as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs. 1,53,675 made to the Textile Commissioner under the provisions of clause 21C(1)(b) or under clause 27 of the Cotton Textiles (Control), Order, 1948, was a business expenditure allowable to the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the medical benefit given to the employees could not be treated as perquisites, for the purposes of section 40A(5) ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference in so far as they are relevant may not be briefly stated. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 19...
Voltamp Transformers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1980
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Guj)312; [1981]129ITR102(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this reference under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee : ' (1) Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the amount of commission paid was exorbitant and that there was no commercial consideration or business expendiency for the payment of such an exorbitant commissio (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of commission paid was exorbitant and that there was no commercial consideration or business expendiency for the payment of such an exorbitant commissio ?' 2. The assessment year under consideration is assessment year 1969-70, the previous year being the year July 1, 1967, to June 30, 1968. The assessee is a private limited company and has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of electric transformers. The main shareholders of the assessee-company ...
In Re: Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Manufacturing Co. Ltd., (In Liquidatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas515(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The applicant herein who is the Provident Fund Inspector, Ahmedabad, has taken out this summons for direction to grant leave to the applicant to continue 22 criminal cases against the erstwhile directors and other officers of the Manekchowk and Ahmedabad . (in liquidation), pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The leave is sought under s. 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, provides as under : '446. Suits stayed on winding-up order. - (1) When a winding up order has been made or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.' 3. I do not think that the leave as prayed for is necessary obviously for the following reasons : The present prosecutions are ag...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Pushpavati Kantilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR582(Guj)
Majumdar, J. 1. The revenue has got referred for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, a question of law arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ` A'. The said question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in passing the rectification orders for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 196 ?' 2. A few facts leading to this reference may now be stated. The assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment years are 1962-63 and 1963-64. The assessee was also a member of the joint Hindu family consisting of Kantilal, his wife, Pushpavati (the present), Kantilal's son, Dinces, his daughter-in-law, Usha, and his daughter, Rupande. Dinesh died on August 15, 1958, and under s. 6 of the Hindu Successsion Act, his widow and hi...
Dhari Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dhari and anr. Vs. Chavda ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1990Guj149; 1990CriLJ1758; (1990)1GLR529
(1) Is it compulsory for a dealer in the fair price shop having his shop situated in the market area to obtain a licence under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short hereafter referred to as the Market Act)? Thus, an impertinent question that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding the interpretation of Section 8 and words (i) 'general commission agent', and (10 'trader' as defined in Sections 2(vii) and 2(xxiii) respectively of the said Markets Act. (2) The material facts constituting the context and the background out of which the above question emerges are briefly stated as under: 'Whether, when any person (i) who is strictly and exclusively a dealer in the fair price shop, and (ii) is so authorised by the Government intending to distribute the essential commodities like good-grains, sugar, rice, millet, etc. (for short, hereafter referred to as the agricultural produce) to the weaker sections of the society at a fair and reasonable price, and (ii...
Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat Vs. Babubhai T. Panchal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Guj)229; [1982]133ITR455(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 2(15) were not attracted in this case with regard to release by the deceased and, accordingly, deleting the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 72,668 as 1/3rd share of the deceased in the HUF movable propert ?' 2. The facts are that the deceased in this case was one Trikamlal P. Panchal who died on March 3, 1964. The deceased, Trikamlal, was a member of an HUF consisting of himself, his wife and his son. The HUF owned both movable and immovable properties. The deceased executed a deed of release on January 29, 1964, and by this deed he released his interest in the movable property only out of the total property belonging to the HUF. He released this interest in movable property in favour of other members of the HUF wi...
Motibhai D. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR671(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the land in question was non-agricultural in character ?' 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1966-67, relevant previous year being the financial year ended March 31, 1967. The assessee along with two other persons, Dr. Dhirajlal Harilal and Dr. Harilal Chandandas, purchased lands bearing survey Nos. 115 and 153 of Acher of Sabarmati, admeasuring 34,729 square yards of land. This purchase was made on October 19, 1946. The total price paid for the land was Rs. 1,39,450 and it was purchased at the rate of Rs. 4 per square yard. The assessee had six annas share in the rupee in the said land. Out of this aggregate area of 34,727 square yards, land admeasuring 16,172 square yards was sold to three co-operative societies on March 17, 1967. The assessee received...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »