Gujarat Court September 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 Income-tax Vs. Abdul Rehman and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR709(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of four partners. We are concerned with the assessment year 1973-74 for which the accounting period is Samvat year 2028. Four partners of the assessee-firm obtained loan of Rs. 10,000 each in their individual names from the Surat People's Co-operative Bank and the aggregate amount of Rs. 40,000 so borrowed by the partners was transferred on that very day to the assessee-firm to the credit of an account called the 'Surat People's Co-operative Bank Loan Account'. In the course of assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee-firm claimed that the amount borrowed from the bank on the money borrowed should not be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee-firm and held that the transaction of loan had taken place between each partner and the bank and, on the transfer of the amount borrowed to the assessee-firm, the capital o...
Shantaben Chinubhai (Guardian of Minor, Upendra Chinubhai) Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Guj)185; [1992]196ITR44(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee was a partner in two partnership firms ('firms' for short) running in the name and style of Messrs. United Builders and Messrs. Chinubhai Manilal and Co. Both the firms in which the assessee was a partner were carrying on business as building contractors. In the course of his wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed that amounts invested in the aforesaid two firms were part of the assets of an industrial undertaking belonging to these firms and, therefore, the amounts invested were exempt under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act' for short). It was contended that the firms in which the assessee was partner owned an industrial undertaking as defined in the Explanation to clause (xxxi) of section 5(1) of the Act which is made applicable to clause (xxxii) also, because the firms, as building contractors, processed goods and constructed buildings. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, rejected the claim of ...
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT88(Guj); (1992)1GLR452
M.B. Shah, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is the Brooke Bond India Limited which is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the Director and Shareholder of petitioner No. 1-Company. In this petition the petitioners have mainly prayed that Tariff Item 3(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for brief) which provides for rate of duty of excise on 'package tea', is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India as it is arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond the legislative competence, and for a direction to the respondents not to levy and collect duty of excise on the basis of Tariff Item 3(2) from the petitioners and to refund the amount which is recovered on the basis of Tariff Item 3(2) on 'package tea' sold by the petitioners. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that : (i) Package tea is not a different product of the tea and there is no difference between package tea of all variet...
Becharbhai Karsanbhai and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)1GLR1
G.N. Ray, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is directed against the rejection of the application made by the petitioners under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancing the Award in view of the enhancement of the Award in other cases covered by the same Notification for acquisition. It appears that the Collector rejected the said application. under Section 28A(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the Award, simply on the ground that Section 28A has been brought into the Act by way of amendment after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the instant case. It appears to us that the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has no relevance in considering the case for enhancement under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court, made in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana. reported in : [1986]3SCR660 . The Supreme C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›