Gujarat Court March 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Digvijay Cement Company Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Guj)274; [1986]159ITR253(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. In all four questions have been referred to us : two at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, and two at the instance of the assessee. The questions are as under : By the Commissioner : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the pontoons are covered by the expression 'ship' and, therefore, are entitled to development rebate at a higher rate of 40% instead of 25% on the basis of plant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in allowing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of Sikka 4th Expansion Unit, Bombay Cement Mills 1st Expansion, and Asbestos Products Division 1st Expansion Unit By the assessee : (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 78,000 being fees paid to M/s. Indopal British Consulting Enterprises was not a revenue expenditure (4) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhovandas Vithaldas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: [1986]159ITR236(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. This reference relates to four assessment years, viz., 1965-66 to 1968-69 (corresponding to the accounting years S.Y. 2020 to 2023) of the assessee, Tribhovandas Vithaldas, Hindu undivided family which consisted of S/Shri Ramanlal, Manherlal and Rameshchandra, who are the sons of late Tribhovandas, and Bai Reva who is the widow of said Tribhovandas. According to the Income-tax Officer, Shri Natverlal Tribhovandas was also a coparcener. The first accounting year 2020 corresponding to the assessment year 1965-66, comprised of a period commencing from October 18, 1963, to November 4, 1964. The assessee claimed that there was a partial partition of the capital of the Hindu undivided family on Magsar Vad 11 of S.Y. 2020, and there was a partition amongst the four members, namely, Ramanlal, Manherlal, Rameshchandra and Bai Reva. This claim of partial partition was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer noted that aforesaid Manherlal, Rameshchandra and Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC211; 1986(6)LC46(Gujarat); 1985(21)ELT24(Guj)
J.P. Desai, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company, while petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the said Company. The petitioner-company carries on the business of processing of textile fabrics of various varieties and has for that purpose a process house situated at Ahmedabad. Section 3 of the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act, 1953 (Act No. 12 of 1953) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1953') provides for levy of duty on all cloth manufactured on or after the appointed day in India and on all cloth lying in stock on the appointed day in any factory where cloth is manufactured or in any premises appurtenent thereto. Section 5 of the said Act of 1953 empowers the Central Government to exempt a particular variety of cloth from levy of such duty. In exercise of the said powers, the Union of India, respondent No. 1 in this petition issued a notification exempting processed cotton cloth manufactured on hand-loom or ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Vana and ors. Vs. Pavansingh Harisingh Chauhan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC32
A.P. Ravani, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original claimants. One Gumabhai met with an automobile accident on February 1, 1978 and the dependents of the deceased Gumabhai filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 36 of 1978 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra and Claimed Rs. 75,000/- as compensation from the respondents herein, i.e. driver, owner and the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after recording evidence and after hearing and parties, came to the conclusion that the applicants-claimants were entitled in all to Rs. 12,000/-that is to say, Rs. 5,000/- on the count of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 7,000/- on the count of loss of expectation of life. The tribunal did not award any amount whatsoever for the future economic loss sustiained by the applicants-claimants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and awiard passed by the tribunal, the applicants-claimants have preferred this appeal.2. It is argued that there was dispute with...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ismail Alibha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC66
S.A. Shah, J.1. The appellant-United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the judgment and award of Rs. 16,000/-passed in favour of the parents of deceased Musa Ismail Sapa on 11-10-1977 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharuch, in Motor Accidents Claims Petition No. 13 of 1974.2. The short facts are that on 11-1-1975 respondent No. 12 Ibrahim Hasan Vali Afinwala was going to his field with his tractor bearing No. GHN 8852. While going to his field, he took one Haribhai Motibhai with him. When the tractor was in village Tankari, deceased Musa Ismail Sapa, friend of respondent No. 12, met him. Said Musa also took his seat in the tractor. Thereafter, respondent No. 12 drove his tractor to his field which was at a distance of about 1.5 kms. from village Tankari. They all visited the field, and thereafter while returning, deceased Musa Ismail and Haribhai went on foot to the road by a short-cut, and waited there for the tractor to come. Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Video Association and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR806
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These three petitions by three different sets of petitioners can be conveniently taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment and there is concurrence of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective petitioners and the common Government Pleader appearing for the State of Gujarat. In effect, there is a challenge to the vires of Section 6-A introduced by the State Legislature by enacting the Gujarat Entertainment Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, which inserted Section 6-A into the provisions of Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977. There is also challenge to Rules 13 and 19 of the Gujarat Cinema (Regulation of Exhibition by Video) Rules, 1984. The span of challenge will be examined by us hereafter.2. The petitioner No. 1 of the first of the three petitions is an association of video exhibitors, known as Gujarat Video Association. There are four more individual petitioners also, running such video shows either essentially at video centres or at some hotels. In th...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Vyas (Guardian of Minor, B.B. Vyas) Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: [1986]159ITR141(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions are referred to us for our opinion : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in order to attract the provisions of section 49 of the Act, it was not necessary that the capital asset which was sold had to be capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act at the time when it was acquired 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cost of acquisition of the capital asset sold was not to be computed on the basis of the market value on the date of the gift ?' 2. A few relevant facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the assessee in support of this reference. The assessment years under reference are 1971-72 and 1972-73, the corresponding previous years being the years which ended on March 31, 1971, and March 31, 1972, respectively. The assessee ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›