Gujarat Court September 1980 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Budhalal Amulakhdas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR97(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following three questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that Budhalal Amulakhdas represented the assessee-firm in dual capacity (individual and HUF), the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm could be said to have fulfilled the requisite conditions laid down for the purpose of grant of registration and is, therefore, entitled to the registration under the Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in holding that the share of profits from the assessee-firm must be assessed in the hands of Budhalal Amulakhdas in individual capacity as also in the capacity of HUF separately, and cannot be clubbed together ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabhai Tribhovandas Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR326(Guj)
Majmudar, J.1. At the instance of the accountable person, a question of law has been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under s. 64(1) of the E. D. Act, 1953. The question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that on the death of the deceased, Shrimati, Kevalbai Tribhovandas Shah, the 1/2 share of the Hindu undivided family property had passed under the appropriate provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?' 2. The relevant facts leading to this reference may now be stated. Deceased, Smt. Kevalbai Tribhovandas Shah, was the widow of Tribhovandas Chhaganlal Shah, who died in 1940. Their only son, Dalsukhbhai, died in 1945. Dalsukhbhai had a son called Ajitkumar who survived Dalsukhbhai but thereafter died on June 15, 1953. The said Ajitkumar had a son called Kiritkumar who was the only living coparcener at the time of death of February 8, 1969. At the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Suhrid Geigy Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)2GLR424
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Ahmedabad. It has been manufacturing medicines. Its pharmaceutical products are liable to pay duty under Item 14E in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Under the Act, the Central Excise Rules, 1944 have been made. Rule 8 which is reproduced below enables the Central Government to exempt excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods by publishing a notification in the Official Gazette. While exercising power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, the Central Government can specify conditions subject to which the exemption will be available in respect of excisable goods. It reads as follows:The Central Government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods.Sub-ru...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat Vs. Babubhai Harjivandas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Guj)204; [1981]129ITR276(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. Both these references arise out of the same order of the income-tax Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the revenue, one question arising out of the decision of the Tribunal has been referred to us and that is Estate Duty Reference No. 1 of 1975. At the instance of the accountable person. question No. 1 has been referred to us and that is Estate Duty Reference No. 2 of 1975. Since both these questions arise out of the same order of the Tribunal, we will dispose of both them by this common judgment. Question Nos. 1 and 2 referred to us are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 56,500 being the value of the share of the deceased in the goodwill of the firm, M/s. Harjivandas Hathibhai, was not liable to be included in the principal value of the estate of the decease (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Karsandas Popatlal Dhinoja and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT268(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. By the impugned order dated January 25, 1973 as per Annexure 'A' passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad, primary gold totally weighing 1598.400 gms. valued at about Rs. 35,100/- at the time of the seizure thereof on February 12, 1971 was ordered to be confiscated under section 71 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 for the violation of section 8(1), section 11 and section 27 of the Act. A penalty was also imposed against the persons from whose possession the gold was seized, (penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 4000/- on petitioner No. 2 and Rs. 2000/- each on petitioners Nos. 3, 4 & 5). It is this order of confiscation and imposition of penalty which has been challenged by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate order dated January 24, 1976 passed by the appellate authority and the revisional order dated June 21, 1978 as per Annexure 'C' passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Ashok K. Parikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR46(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 right in law in holding that for the purpose of computation of the market value of the shares of M/s. Mehta Parikh and Co. Pvt. Ltd., the advance tax paid under section 210 of the Income-tax Act. 1961, and shown on the assets side of the balance sheet of the said company cannot be deducted from the tax payable, in determining whether the provision for taxation is in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto within the meaning of clause (ii) (e) of Explanation II to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : We are concerned with the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee before us and the assessment years under consideration are assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Punit Ghar Ganti Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT121(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner firm is a manufacturer of flour grinding mills known as Punit Char Ghanti. They contain V-Belt pully system. They can be worked either by applying manual labour or with the help of an electric motor. Each of the flour mills manufactured by the petitioner contains a facility for housing an electric motor but the petitioner is neither manufacturing electric motors nor are all the flour mills manufactured by them fitted with electric motors. If there is a specific demand made by a customer to supply him the appliance fitted with an electric motor, the petitioner would purchase an electric motor from the market and fix the same in the appliance manufactured by it. After Item No. 33-C was added in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter referred to as the Act), the classification lists submitted by the petitioner were approved on the basis that the flour mills manufactured by the petitioner were domestic electrical appliance...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Arvindbhai Chinubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1980
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Guj)228; [1982]133ITR800(Guj)
Majumdar, J.1. At the instance of the CWT, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad, two questions of law have been referred for our opinion under s. 27(1) of the W. T. Act, 1957, and they read as under : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 76,857 representing income-tax refund due to the assessee did not form a part of his taxable asset under section 2(e) of the wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the valuation date (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right is law in holding that for the purpose of computation of the market value of the shares of Bipin Silk Mills (P.) Ltd., the advance tax paid under section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet of the said company cannot be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provision for taxation is in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto within the meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Gautam Sarabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR133(Guj)
Majmudar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred, at the instance of the revenue, the following two questions of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether the capital loss brought forward has to be set off against the capital gains if related to capital assets other than short-term capital assets assessable for that assessment year under section 74(1)(a)(ii) of the Act 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gain for any assessment year could be determined after applying the provisions of section 80T and, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 5,000 under the said section must be allowed first and the provisions of carry forward and set-off must be applied thereafter ?' 2. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy posed for our decision in the present proceedings, it is necessary to have a look at certain relevant facts. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69, the previous year ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. SuessIn Textile Bearing Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Guj)219; [1982]135ITR443(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 right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a claimed by it ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessee is a limited company and is carrying on the business of manufacturing ball-bearings and other machineries used in textile spinning departments. The assessment year under consideration is 1962-63, the previous year being the year ending September 30, 1961. The assessee claimed relief under s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the revised return which it filed on January 15, 1963. The ITO negatived the claim by holding that the assessee could not be termed as a new industrial undertaking within the meaning of s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In coming to this decision, he also relied on the decision of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »