Gujarat Court March 1986 Judgments
Rajkot Engineering Association and ors. and Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Guj)272; (1987)1GLR3; [1986]162ITR28(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since common question of law and facts arise in these two petitions, we intend to dispose of them by this common judgment, though we will shortly set out the relevant facts and circumstances in which the respective petitioners have moved these petitions challenging the validity of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been placed on the statute book by the Finance Act. 1984, with effect from April 1, 1985, and rule 6G as well as Forms Nos. 3CA to 3CE of the Income-tax (Amendment) Rules, 1985, promulgated on January 31, 1985, and made effective from April 1, 1985, and section 271B providing for penalty for not getting the accounts audited broadly on the ground of the impugned provisions being violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and, consequently, therefore, praying for appropriate writs, orders and directions to quash and set aside the said provisions. 2. Special Civil Application No. 2068 of 1985 has been moved by two registered asso...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Guj)241; (1986)2GLR1342; [1986]162ITR240(Guj)
Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction asking the respondent to pass immediately an order refunding Rs. 74,79,006 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from April 1, 1984, and also to pass such other and further order as the interest of justice demands in the matter. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company and is an assessee under the Income-tax act, 1961, for the last many years. The respondent is the Income-tax Officer who is having jurisdiction to asses the income of the petitioner-company. The petitioner has paid a total advance tax of Rs. 74,08,478 and the tax deducted at source was Rs. 70,519 making the total of the two sums, Rs. 74,79,006, in the accounting year being the calendar year ending on December 31, 1983. The estimated income of the petitioner-assessee for the accounting year 1983 was Rs. 1,32,52,000 in the estimate of advance tax filed in the year. The petitioner has ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajendraj P. Bhow
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR359(Guj)
S.A. Shah, J.1. This reference arises at the instance of the Revenue for our opinion. The questions of law that arise out of the order dated January 24, 1978, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that : (i) the asset's interest in the partnership firm styled M/s. Public Construction Company; and (ii) the amount of R. 5,000 standing in the said firm's books to the assessee's credit as accumulated profit stood converted into joint property of the Hindu undivided family headed by the assessee as karta? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that conversion of the said properties into joint property of the Hindu undivided family did not involve a transfer within the meaning of section 60 read with section 63(b) of the Income-tax Act (3)...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandravilas Hotel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR300(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The assessee, a registered partnership-firm, is running a hotel. It disclosed sales of Rs. 19,55,651 in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 and the gross profit disclosed by the assessee worked out to 24 per cent. The sales during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 were shown at Rs. 23,49,434 and the gross profit disclosed by the assessee worked out to 28 per cent. The assessee was maintaining the accounts by following the merchantile method and it was its case that this method of accounting was regularly employed by it from year to year. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68 the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee's auditors had observed in their report that 'daily collection slips or cash memos have not been produced to us for our verification'. In other words, the receipts did not admit of check. The Income-tax Officer further noticed that there was no check on closing stock either. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Panjrapole Sanstha Vs. Miscellaneous Mazdoor Sabha and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR231; (1987)IILLJ291Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is to quash the award dated 28th October, 1985 of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference No. (LC/IDA-D) No. 4 of 1985. The Labour Court had occasion to consider to whether the Vastrapur branch of the Ahmedabad Panjrapole Sanstha is a 'commercial establishment' or not and as to whether the employees therein have to be paid the minimum wages. After elaborately discussing the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has to pay the basic pay of Rs. 300/- per month to the compounder, basic pay of Rs. 250/- per month to other workers not being watchmen or women workers and Rs. 200/- basic pay per month to women workers and watchmen. It is against this order that the present special civil application has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution. 2. Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, elaborately argued as to the applicability of the Bombay Shops and Esta...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Panjarapole Sanstha Vs. Miscellaneous Mazdoor Sabha and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)2GLR983
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is to quash the award dated 28-10-1985 of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LC/IDA-D) No. 4 of 1985. The Labour Court had occasion to consider as to whether the Vastrapur branch of the Ahmedabad Panjrapole Sanstha is a 'commercial establishment' or not and as to whether the employees therein have to be paid the minimum wages. After elaborately discussing the evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has to pay the basic pay of Rs. 300/- per month to the compounder, basic pay of Rs. 250/- per month to other workers not being watchmen or women workers and Rs. 200/- basic pay per month to women workers and watchmen. It is as against this order that the present Special Civil Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. Vakil, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, elaborately argued as to the applicability of the Bombay Shop...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhavnagar Bone and Fertiliser Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Guj)116; [1987]166ITR316(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has referred to us for our opinion the following three questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was an 'industrial company' within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (6) of section 2 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 3,82,905 could not be subjected to tax under the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 89,888 which formed part of the total sum of Rs. 3,82,905 and which was...
Tag this Judgment!Panchal Manilal Chhaganlal and anr. Vs. Mulshanker Chhotelal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Guj177; (1987)1GLR397
ORDER1. This Revision Application by the original defendants is directed against the judgment and decree for possession passed by both the courts below.2. The trial court held that the plaintiff alone is the owner and landlord of the suit property having proved the partition in the year 1970 and also held that the suit premises were let to the defendants only for the purpose of residence and defendant No. 1 had changed the user. The trial court also held that the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No. 1 had sub-let the suit premises to defendant No. 2. The trial court also held that the plaintiff proved that defendant No. 1 had discontinued the use of the suit premises for the purpose for which the premises were let. The trial court also held that the plaintiff required the suit premises for reasonable and personal use and occupation and greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. While holding that the premises were let only for residence and the user was changed from res...
Tag this Judgment!Naniben D/O. Dayalbhai Morarbhai Vs. Vidhyaben Ambalal Mistry
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR352
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This Revision Application by the original-plaintiff landlady is directed against the decree refusing possession on the ground of arrears of rent passed by the lower appellate Court. The following dates are relevant:1-3-75 Rent is due from1-12-75 suit notice13-1-77 suit filed2-12-77 issues raised14-12-77 judgment of trial court.2. The rent note Ex. 23 dl. 1st May 1972 contains a term that the tenant has to pay the education cess which is payable by year and not by month and therefore, Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act does not apply. As regards Section 12(3)(b) when the issues were raised on 1st December 1977 there was no full deposit of the arrears of rent then due. The monthly rent is Rs. 145/- plus the education cess. As against the sum of Rs. 2830/- due on the date of the issues, the defendant had deposited Rs. 1,000/- and odd. It appears that the defendant was absent herself and her advocate had passed a purshis of 'no instructions' at ex. 26 and, therefore, the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandravilas Hotel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Guj)182; [1987]164ITR102(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, runs a hotel and a boarding house. The assessment years under consideration are 1972-73 and 1973-74, previous years being Samvat years 2027 and 2028, respectively. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee was alleged to have paid Rs. 29,337 by way of commission to one Ramkumar Kalyanji (hereinafter referred to as 'Ramkumar') for supplying coins in exchange for currency notes. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, the commission paid to Ramkumar was Rs. 7,812. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that it had to pay this commission to get small coins as there was shortage of coins. It was the assessee's case that many customers who came to take snacks and tea in its hotel were required to be given coins and, therefore, it was necessary for the assessee to have small coins for the purpose of the business. It was, therefore, that the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »