Gujarat Court June 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat Vs. Saurashtra Rachnatamak Samiti
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR986
S.D. Dave, J. 1. Acting upon the request made by the Commissioner the following question of law has been referred to the High Court by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad, under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales tax Act, 1969. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that merely because the assessee had not filed any appeal against the order of the subordinate officer, that would not operate as a bar for raising the plea about the impropriety or illegality of the order in suo motu revision under section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?' 2. The facts and the background behind the reference are not in dispute. The assessee Saurashtra Rachnatamak Samiti of Rajkot carries on business in products of village industries as defined in the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 and they are the dealers registered under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The assessee had paid sales tax at a lower rate on certain ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geskets and Radiators Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Guj)139; [1991]192ITR509(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of radiators. The assessee-company also exports radiators for selling them abroad. In the course of income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee-company claimed deduction of (1) Rs. 1,97,472, being the provision made for mee ting future liabilities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; and (2) Rs. 45,906, being the expenditure incurred on payment of salary to the staff engaged for export development. Other claims made by the assessee-company in the course of the assessment are not relevant for this reference. 2. So far as the claim for deduction of gratuity provision was concerned, the Income-tax Officer held that the deduction of the amout claimed by the assessee-company was not permissible under section 40A(7)(a) unless and until the conditions laid down in section 40A(7)(b)(ii) are satisfied. He, however, obser ved that, it the conditions in the said...
Dhanlaxmi Industries Vs. Vinodkumar G. Sarval and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)2GLR1393
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. The question of some importance and frequent occurrence that this Court is incidentally called upon to touch for some guidance to the trial Court in this petition is-'why and in what manner the learned Magistrate should activate themselves in attending to and deciding the applications under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to the interim custody of the muddamal-goods seized by the Police during the course of the investigation and lying with it pending the trial?'2. In brief, the grievance made by the petitioner M/s. Dhanlaxmi Industries, a third party and a bona fide purchaser of muddamal Lathe machine-(without notice and having paid a consideration thereof) in Misc. Criminal Application is to the effect that though as far back as on 14th December, 1988, it has submitted an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, praying inter alia that th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kantilal Ambalal (Huf)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR376(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. A Hindu undivided family of Ambalal Shivlal consisted of two coparceners one of whom was Kantilal Ambalal. There was a partial partition of the Hindu undivided family of Ambalal Shivlal on March 30, 1970. At this partition, lands bearing Survey Nos. 296 and 386/2 of Vadaj were allotted to Kantilal Ambalal. The Hindu undivided family of Kantilal Ambalal consisted of Kantilal Ambalal, the karta, his wife and his two minor sons, Kamalesh and Pradeep. On the partial partition of the properties of the Hindu undivided family of Ambalal Shivlal, as aforesaid, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 296 and 386/2 of Vadaj became the properties of the Hindu undivided family of Kantilal Ambalal. 2. A notification dated January 15, 1970, was issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the aforesaid lands bearing Survey Nos. 296 and 386/2 of Vadaj for the Gujarat Housing Board. After the partial partition as aforesaid, the Hindu undivid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kaira Dist. Co-operative Milk Producers ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Guj)22; [1991]192ITR608(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us for our opinion, the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to recompute the capital employed without deducting the current liabilities and redetermined the deduction admissible to the assessee under the provisions of section 80J and rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, except for the amount of Rs. 3,029 the balance of the expenses of Rs. 24,307 were not hit by the provisions of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, consequently, were allowable under section 37(1) of the Act (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal w...
Kamalia Brothers and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Guj138; (1992)1GLR310
ORDER1. The short facts leading to the present revision are as under:1.1. The present petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit against the State being Special Civil Suit No. 157/ 77, for recovery of Rupees 1,77,397.57 for extra work done and for damages on account of termination of the construction contract on the part of the respondent-defendant. 1.2 During the pendency of this suit the petitioner served the respondent with a notice of production in respect of three specific letters. Such letters have been addressed by specific officials of the P.W.D. and also addressed to some specific officers of the P. W. D. Since the notice of production was not complied with, the petitioner as plaintiff gave an application Exh. 73, for discovery on oath of the specified documents such application being under Order 11, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. This application was heard by the Trial Court and by order below Exh. 73, the same was rejected. It is against the order of rejection that the present r...
Minaben Arvindlal Gandhi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR413
S.D. Shah, J.1. By these group of petitions, the petitioners challenge the order of Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Govt, of Gujarat, dated 25th July, 1984, whereby the Secretary cancelled the order of Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol, dated 4th November, 1982 granting permission to the owners/occupiers of Block Nos. 75 & 88 situated at village Mota Borsara, Taluka Mangrol for making non-agricultural use of the said land. The said order was passed by the Taluka Development Officer in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 65 of Bombay Land Revenue Code, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code', read with Sections 123 & 157 of Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.2. The facts leading to the group of these petitions, briefly stated, are as under:(i) The respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in each of these petitions, through Power of Attorney, applied to the Taluka Development Officer, Mangrol, under Section 65 of the Code seeking permiss...
State of Gujarat Vs. Chunilal Mayachand Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC62(Guj)
S.D. Dave, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal at Ahmedabad has referred the undermentioned question for our answer under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding the the 'Nestle Nestum' and 'Nestle Nestum Baby Cereal' as sold by the opponent are covered by residuary entry 13 of Schedule III to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ?' 2. The abovesaid question has been referred to this Court at the instance of the Revenue in the following facts and circumstances : The assessee, Ms. Chunilal Mayachand Mehta, had sought the determination under section 62 of the Act in respect of the three products, namely, (i) Nestle Cerelac, (ii) Nestle Nestum Baby Cereal, and (iii) Nestle Nestum, as to what rate of tax would be payable on the sales of the abovesaid products. The Deputy Commissioner concerned had held that the product No. (i) was a vitaminised infant food sold in a sealed container, within th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vilasben Hasmukhlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-12-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Guj)151; [1991]192ITR214(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. At the outset, it may be stated that this reference arises from a decision of the Tribunal which included one of us, and when this matter was called out, this fact was pointed out by us to learned counsel appearing for both the parties showing our disinclination to hear the matter on that ground. Both learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had only followed an earlier decision rendered in Jogibhai Mangalbhai v. ITO, decided on October 18, 1975, and further that the substantive points involved in this reference are already covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Suleman Abdul Sattar [1983] 139 ITR 8, and insisted that the matter should be heard and disposed of by this Bench. Since both counsel wanted this Bench to take up the matter for hearing as the matter was covered by an earlier decision of this court, it has been taken up for hearing. 2. The assessee had filed a return for the assessment year 1970-71 declaring the total income as Rs. 4,577. In P...
Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Arvind H. Pathak
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1993Guj47
C.V. Jani, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the money decree for an amount of Rs. 39,533.60p. with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and also the order regarding costs by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3372/76. The facts in brief, which have given rise to this appeal, are as under :2. The respondent Arvind H. Pathak, sole proprietor of M/s. Venus Containers at Godhra, filed Civil Suit No. 3372/76 against the present appellant Gujarat Agro Oil Enterprises Ltd. for recovering an amount of Rs. 29,386.25 p. for the price of the goods sold and delivered to the defendant, with interest amounting to Rs. 10,238.20 p. on such principal amount and Rs. 100/- by way of notice charges. According to the plaintiff, who was manufacturing Tin containers of various types and sizes at Godhra agreed to supply tin containers as per the defendant's purchase orders Nos....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »