Gujarat Court June 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Lakhtar Cotton Press Co. (Pv ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR503(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. These two references relate to the assessment years 1973-74 (Samvat year 2028) and 1974-75 (Samvat year 2029). The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in ginning and pressing of cotton. Admittedly more than 80 per cent. of its income is from pressing charges recovered from customers and the balance relates to ginning charges. The ITO treated the assessee as an 'industrial company' within the meaning of s. 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1973. That section in so far as we are concerned, reads as under : 'For the purposes of this section and the First Schedule, - ...... (c) 'industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged - ...... in the manufacture or processing of goods ......' 2. It is not necessary to notice the Explanation to the said sub-section as it is an undisputed fact that more than 80 per cent. of its income derived by the assessee is from pressing charges recovered from its customers. The Commissioner acting in exercise of the powe...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Mohanlal Vs. Narshi Ramji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj347; (1982)2GLR422
ORDER1. This revision petition has raised a small, but interesting point of law, as to whether the document which ultimately refers to the share in an amount is required to be registered merely because that share emanates from the share in the property which was to be sold, proceeds realised and distributed.2. It is an admitted position that the present petitioner Jayantilal Mohanlal, Narsinh Ramji (predecessor of opponent No. 1), and Ruda Kana opponent No. 2, entered into an agreement at Talaja that there was a transaction for the sale of Wadi between Pandya Jayantilal Mohanlal (present petitioner) and Sagar Hariram, which was cancelled by Sagar Hariram and Narsinh Ramji decided to purchase that Wadi and petitioner Jayantilal had no objection against that, and there is no right, title or interest of Jayantilal, so far as that is concerned, and to which Jayantilal has agreed. I would not refer to in details, because the entire case is based on one Kabulat or agreement on which the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Guj)247
Mankad, J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee, a public limited company, is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 2,37,537 in the computation of its income for the assessment year 1971-72, the year of account being the calendar year 1970. 2. The above question arises in the background of the following facts. The assessee-company entered into a contract with one Madhu Wool Spinning Mills, a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'), for the purchase of a right to import staple fibre of non-viscose origin. Under the terms of the contract, it paid Rs. 1,68,000 to the firm by way of premium for the purchase of the said right. Out of this premium paid to the firm, the firm paid back Rs. 18,140 to the assessee-company. Thus after deducting the amount paid back by the firm, the premium paid by the assessee-company to the firm in round figures came to Rs. 1,50,000. The above contract came to be cancelled or terminated and the firm gave three cheques of...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)31CTR(Guj)247; [1983]143ITR166(Guj)
MANKAD J. - The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee, a public limited company, is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 2,37,537 in the computation of its income for the assessment year 1971-72, the year of account being the calendar year 1970.The above question arises in the background of the following facts. The assessee-company entered into a contract with one Madhu Wool Spinning Mills, a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'), for the purchase of a right to import staple fibre of non-viscose origin. Under the terms of the contract, it paid Rs. 1,68,000 to the firm by way of premium for the purchase of the said right. Out of this premium paid to the firm, the firm paid back Rs. 18,140 to the assessee-company. Thus after deducting the amount paid back by the firm, the premium paid by the assessee-company to the firm in round figures came to Rs. 1,50,000. The above contract came to be cancelled or terminated and the firm gave three cheques of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Angadia Kantilal Somabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj276; (1982)1GLR157
A.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. In these three appeals the question of general importance which arises for our determination is (i) whether a firm of Angadias can be said to be 'importers of goods' within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Octroi Rules framed under sub-section (7) of Section 457 read with sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). and, if yes, (ii) whether it can be called upon to furnish the information required by the requisition notice issued as per Sch. I appended to the Rules. In order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to few provisions of law which have a bearing on the point at issue.2. Section 127(2) of the Act empowers the Municipal Corporation to impose taxes specified in sub-section (1) of the said section. Octroi is one of the taxes specified in subsection (2) of Section 127 of the Act. Section 149(1) enacts the procedure to be followed for levying the...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar Madhusudan Vs. Suhas Shankar Shirke
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1982
Reported in: 1982ACJ491; AIR1982Guj332; (1982)2GLR379
P.D. Desai, J.1. The appellant, an unmarried youth aged about 20, met with art accident on May 26, 1978 at about 7.30 A. M. on a public road near Vakal Seva Kendra in the city of Baroda. At the material time, the appellant was driving a scooter and he was knocked down by a motor tanker which came from behind and collided with the scooter. The motor tanker was owned by the first respondent and at the material time it was driven by the second respondent. The third respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained minor external injuries on the right eye, nose and lower lip. The internal injuries, which were major, consisted of the fracture of the pubic bone and rupture of urethra. The appellant was taken to the S. S. G. Hospital, Baroda at about 8.15 A. M. and he was admitted as an indoor patient. An operation was performed at about 5.30 P. M. on the same day for repairing the rupture of urethra. The appellant was discharged from the hospital ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Dhirajben R. Amin
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Guj)255; [1983]141ITR875(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue raises the following two questions for our determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 57,754 could not be brought to tax as capital gains in the hands of the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under s. 80G in respect of donation of 150 shares of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., of the value of Rs. 1,70,000 to the two trusts Arogyavardhini trust and Ujjwal Trust ?' 2. A few facts which have relevance may now be set out. 3. The assessee, Dhirajben was carrying on business in partnership with her husband and son in the name and style of M/s. Nirayu Associates with effect from January 1, 1970. She had 10% share in the profits and losses of the partnership, the remaining 90% share being equally divided between her husban...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. the Second Extra As ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Guj81; (1982)2GLR277
ORDER1-2. x x x 3. Before parting we may say that the practice of fixing remuneration of the Commissioner appointed by the Court on the basis of percentage of the amount of sale proceeds is not a desirable practice and Courts should not make resort to this practice is future because it is absolutely unscientific and arbitrary. What will happen if the sale fetches a very nominal amount though the Commissioner has to put in a lot of work? On the other hand, if the sate fetches a very large amount the remuneration payable would be out of proportion in case the Commissioner had to work, say for one hour. And how would the remuneration be worked out if there are no bidders Under the circumstances, remuneration in such matters must be linked to the nature and extent of the work and not to the sale proceeds. 4. XXX ...
Tag this Judgment!Anarkali Sarabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Guj)268; [1982]138ITR437(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us for our opinion the following question under s. 256(1)of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was liable to pay tax in respect of capital gains on receipt of the amount equal to the face value of the preference shares of M/s. Universal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., on the company redeeming its preference shares ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was liable to be taxed to capital gains arising on sale of the shares of Swastic Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. by Anarkali Trust No. 1 whereby the assessee is a sole beneficiary for the year under reference (3) If the answer to question No. 2 above is in the affirmative, whether the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Jayantilal Sendhidas Vs. Ambalal Maganlal Kothari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Guj315; (1982)2GLR676
ORDER1. A very strictly technical argument is advanced in this petition allegedly pertaining to the jurisdiction of an Executing Court and thus bringing the petition under the scope of S. 115 of the Civil P. C., 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') so as to request this Court to exercise the power under that section.*Against order of R. G. Pandya, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), at Kadi, D/- 25-1-1982. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff, who is opponent herein, filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mehsana, for recovery of some amount which was more than Rs. 15,704/-. After, the bifurcation of the Mehsana District and Gandhinagar District, jurisdiction of village Randheja went to the Narol Court (Ahmedabad Rural) and, therefore, that suit was transferred to that Court and was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1978. This suit was decreed by the Narol Court. At the request of the decree-holder, the NaroI Court transferred the decree to the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »