Gujarat Court March 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda Vs. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Guj)292; [1982]135ITR546(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. The question of law as to whether a contribution made to a municipality by a company for providing a pipeline through the municipal land for the disposal of the effluents discharged by the company so as to guard against health hazards to the citizens is a revenue expenditure (as contended by the assessee) or a capital expenditure (as contended by the revenue) gets elbowed out for the time being (for being dealt with later) for reasons which will come to the surface presently. (1) An exercise in futility is a 'must and the Appellate Tribunal should be required to state the case and refer the suggested question of law to the High Court when the High Court's powers under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are invoked either by the assessee or by the revenue. (2) And this 'must' has an option less content, even if the view taken by the Tribunal giving rise to the suggested question of law, is unimpeachable on merits and is wholeheartedly e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Chhatrshal Sinhji D. Zala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Guj)260; [1982]135ITR826(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The assessee, among other assets, owned a palace known as 'Dig Vijay' palace. He declared the value of his palace at Rs. 1,00,000 in his returns of wealth for each of the assessment years from 1961-62 to 1967-68. All the seven assessments were completed by the WTO accepting this valuation. The assessee got the palace valued by the valuer in connection with the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 and returned the market value of the palace at Rs. 3,77,200 on the basis of the valuation report. In view of this valuation made by the valuers, the WTO reopened the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1967-68 and reassessed the net wealth of the assessee. He completed the wealth-tax assessments for these years after taking into account the enhanced valuation of the palace. The market value of the palace was taken at Rs. 2,25,000 for the assessment year 1961-62 and Rs. 3,77,200 for the assessment year 1967-68. The market value for the remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khodiyar Pottery Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: [1986]158ITR69(Guj)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. An impossible argument was advanced before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on behalf of the Revenue, which naturally the Tribunal turned down. Thereupon the Revenue applied for a reference being made to this court and the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (as the text stood on April 1, 1973), the claim of the assessee for extra shift depreciation allowance in respect of the machineries which worked on triple shift is allowable even though the other machinery or plant did not work on triple shift ?'2. We need not waste public time in unnecessary discussion inasmuch as the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is the only conclusion that can be logically arrived at. The assessee-company had worked only certain machineries (and not all the machiner...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rabari Gandu Punja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1981
Reported in: 1982ACJ202; AIR1981Guj200; (1981)0GLR1161
1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, raises a short question regarding liability of the insurance company of a motor truck to satisfy the award of damages made payable by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in favour of the claimant whose mother died out of the motor accident caused by the motor-truck which was insured against the third party risk by the appellant-insurance company. The facts leading to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass and they deserve to be stated at this juncture.2. At 2 p.m. in the noon of 28th April 1075 an accident was caused by a goods-truck bearing No. GTE 8747 in the compound of Western India Tiles Company, Makansar (Morvi). The said truck while inside the compound of the tiles factory, and being taken in reverse ran over a manual labourer presumably an employee of the tiles factory who was engaged in loading tiles in the said truck Deceased Bai Jivi was doing manual work in the said factory and she died in harnes...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Valimohmed Ahmedbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Guj)87; [1982]134ITR214(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The ITO in the course of assessment for the year 1967-68 made an addition under s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee challenged this addition in his appeal before the AAC. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the AAC admitted additional evidence which consisted of affidavits of witnesses. The ITO was not given any opportunity to examine the additional evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses whose evidence was taken on record. The AAC on appreciation of the evidence on record deleted the addition made by the ITO. The revenue went in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') against the decision of the AAC. It was contended on behalf of the revenue that the AAC ought to have given an opportunity to the ITO to counter the additional evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses whose evidence was taken on record by him. The Tribunal found that the AAC had given a notice of h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Bharat Machinery and Hardwa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR875(Guj)
Thakar, J. 1. Does the I.T. Act of 1961 as it stood in 1970-71 oblige an assessee to be gifted with Extra Sensory Perception (E.S.P.) and to have a provisions that (1) his books of accounts are likely to be rejected by the ITO, that (2) the ITO is likely to estimate his profits under the provision to s. 145(1) of the Act, and that (3) he is likely to make such an estimate at as particular rate (say 18%) of his total sales If it does, this reference art the instance so revenue must be answered in its favour. Not otherwise. And, the questions of law reference to this court which have provoked the aforesaid remarks are : '1. Whether, the Tribunal was rightly in holding that, since section 212(3A) postulates that the current income is to be estimated by the assessee and since the difference between the returned income and the assessed income had arisen due to the addition made by the Income-tax Officer by estimate of gross profit's under provision to section 145(1) of the Act, no interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Maneklal Harilal Spg. and Mfg. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR129(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. In this reference three questions are referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Out of three questions the following two questions are referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, payment of Rs. 38,100 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 26,300 for the assessment year 1969-70 made by the assessee to the Indian Cotton Mills Federation for its failure to meet quota or import allotted quota of certain varieties of cotton within the specified time was allowable as an expenditure for working out the business income of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the assessment year 1969-70 payment of Rs. 95,400 made to the Textile Commissioner under the provisions of clause 21 C(1)(b) of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948, was expenditure allowable under section 28 or un...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavlal Punjaram and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Wealth- ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR466(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. A number of questions have arisen in the course of the assessment in the case of Keshavlal Punjaram and others assessed in the capacity of legal heirs of Partivkumar Harshedkumar as an association of persons (hereinafter referred to as AOP, in Income-tax Reference No. 66/77. The main question invoked in this reference has also been raised in Wealth-tax Reference No. 18 of 1976, where also Keshavlal Punjaram & others as legal heirs of Partivkumar Harshadkumar are the assessees. Since an identical question is involved in these allied matters it will be convenient to dispose of both these matters by this common judgment. We will first deal with the question which is common I.T.R. No. 66/77 and W.T.R. No. 18/76 (being question No. 1 out of the four questions in I.T.R No. 66/77 and the only question in W. T.R No. 18/76, though it is worked slightly differently). The said question reads as under : I.T.R.No. 66/77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Prabhudas Madhavdas Vs. Bai Shivkore
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj9; (1982)1GLR333
ORDER1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constn. of India seeks to challenge the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision application No. TEN. B. A. No. 598 of 1975 by which the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal exercising its Dower under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands. Act. 1948. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'), dismissed the revision application of the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner also challenges in this petition. the subsequent review order Passed by the Tribunal in Application No. TEN. C. A. 20 of 1976 by which the Tribunal refused to review its earlier order.2. The question Posed for consideration of this court in the present proceedings is a short one viz whether the Petitioner-tenant's entitled to be treated as a deemed Purchaser of agricultural land bearing S. No. 203 admeasuring 1 acre-8 gunthas situated in the sum of village Thalota, in Visnagar taluka of Mehsana district under the Provisions of Section 32(IB) of the T...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadeo NaraIn Chitravansi Vs. Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Sch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR149
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. The appellant before the Court was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 156 of 1977 which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jamnagar by his judgment dated 20 12-1979. It was the plaintiffs case that from 25-6-1961, be was appointed as an Art Master at Kunjpura Sainik School by the Principal of the School who is the appointing authority. The appellant worked as an Art Master upto 31-7-1977 when he was transferred from Kunjpura Sainik School to Balachadi. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the said order of transfer was passed by way of punishment on the basis of adverse remarks which were never shown to him. The said order was passed in violation of Rules of natural justice and the appellant was singled out for a discriminatory treatment as he was not palatable to the management at Kunjpura. He, therefore, challenged the said order of transfer as being mala fide and arbitrary and having been passed in violation of rules of natural justice; that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »