Gujarat Court January 1992 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. Gujarat State Finance Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Guj)236; [1992]196ITR822(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg. C.J.1. The assessee is a State Financial Corporation established under section 3 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The assessment year under reference is 1977-78, the year of account being the financial year ending on March 31, 1977. In the course of assessment for the assessment year under reference, the assessee claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). According to the assessee, such deduction was to be allowed before deduction is allowed under the said provision and under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that the deduction under section 36(1)(viii)(a) of the Act was to be allowed only before deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act. In other words, according to the Income-tax Officer before granting deduction under the said provision, all deductions, including deduction under the said provision allowable under the Act except deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act we...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balvantrai Vithaldas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR379(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us, for our opinion, the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 60,000 received by the assessee on his retirement from the firm of M/s. Modi Dyes and Industries cannot be eligible to tax under section 28(iv) of the income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. It is not necessary to set out the fact involved in this reference since the question which has been referred to us is directly covered by the decisions of this court in CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393, which is confirmed in CIT (Addl.) v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai : [1987]165ITR166(SC) by the Supreme Court and CIT v. Jayantilal Laxmichand (income-tax Reference No. 111 of 1974, decided on September 4, 1975). Following the said decisions and for the reasons recorded therein, we answer the questions which has been referred to us for out opinion in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Reference answered acco...
Meherbanoo G. Wadiwalla Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Guj)340; [1992]195ITR578(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notices, exhibits 'M-1 and M-2', dated February 20, 1987, issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), on the basis that the value of the agricultural lands is taken at Rs. 4,85,000 for the assessment year 1978-79 and at Rs. 5,82,000 for the assessment year 1979-80 against Rs. 13,21,000 as valued by the approved valuer. Hence, the same has escaped assessment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that issuance of notice in the present case under section 17(1) of the Act is nothing but abuse of power by the concerned officer. For this purpose, he relied upon the fact that, in the wealth-tax returns submitted by the petitioner and the assessment orders for the aforesaid two assessment years, the Wealth-tax Officer has considered the valuation report submitted by the agricultural approved valuer and, after taking into consideration the said report...
Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR84(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order (exhibit J) dated January 5, 1983, passed under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Income-tax Act'), passed by the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle VII, Ahmedabad. The said order reads as under : 'Order under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act : The assessment for the year 1974-75 was finalised on September 20, 1977, determining the tax payable at Rs. 10,83,746. The notice of demand under section 156 of the Act was issued and seed on September 27, 1977. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide his order No. CIT(A)IV/VII-119/77-78, dated October 31, 1979, reduced the total income to Rs. 2,04,40,553 and it resulted in a refund of Rs. 18,05,379. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', vide its order of I. T. A. Nos. 54 & 56 Ahd/1980, dated April 1, 1982, redetermined the total income at Rs. 2,18,58,538 and the tax payable at Rs. 5,65,045. Simple interest at 12%...
Wipro Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC303; 1992(60)ELT370(Guj); (1992)2GLR840
Ravani, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company and petitioner No. 2 is an employee and shareholder thereof, Petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products and toilet soaps. The present petitioner is concerned with vegetable products only. On November 8, 1990, the petitioner company claimed refund of an amount of Rs. 18,61,844/- (Rupees Eighteen lacs sixtyone thousand eight hundred and fortyfour only) for short credit availed of by it for the period commencing from March 1, 1987 to August 24, 1989. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated March 8, 1991 calling upon the petitioner company to show cause, inter alia, as to why the refund claim be not rejected both on merits and on the ground of limitation. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on April 3, 1991. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector has rejected the refund claim as per his order dated April 30, 1991, produced at Annexure F to the pe...
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC251; 1993LC147(Gujarat); 1992(59)ELT207(Guj); (1992)2GLR1301
Ravani, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder thereof. The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of order passed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs. Baroda dated February 26, 1987 by which the Collector held that there was short payment of duty of excise as alleged in the show cause notices dated March 29, 1982 and August 6, 1983 which were issued under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector confirmed the demand made in the show cause notices referred to hereinabove and ordered the petitioner company to pay the duty of excise as per the details mentioned hereinbelow : Rs. 29,11,209.83 ps. (28,06,564.24 ps. as basicduty + 1,04,645.58 ps. spl. ex. duty)Rs. 6,83,928.73 ps. (Rs. 6,51,360.69 ps. as basicduty + Rs. 32,568.84 special ex. duty)---------------------Rs. 35,9...
Alembic Glass Ind. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT64(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Petitioner No. 2 is authorised signatory and shareholder thereof. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of glass and glassware falling under Chapter 7015.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Between October 8,1987 and October 28,1987, the petitioner company cleared 6,26,400 bottles on payment of excise duty. The bottles were supplied to its customers. Out of the bottles supplied, it received back 6,09,240 bottles as being defective. These bottles were received back on 4-1-1988 and on 9-1-1988. The petitioner on January 4,1988 and on January 9,1988 made declaration in appropriate form before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise concerned that defective bottles were received back by the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application on February 18,1988 to the Collector of Central Excise and Customs and sou...
Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR485(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. By an agreement dated June 25, 1984, between the petitioner (Messrs. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd.) and respondent No. 2 (Messrs. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.), the petitioner agreed to purchase the industrial undertaking of respondent No. 2 which was known as S. G. Chemicals and Dyes unit at Ranoli as a going concern. The agreed slump price was Rs. 18.81 crores with a specific condition that all employees of the undertaking were to be taken over by the petitioner on the basis of continuity of service on the existing terms. As per the memorandum of understanding, dated October 1, 1984, the petitioner took over the delivery and charge of the undertaking and started running it. Thereafter, the petitioner filed with respondent No. 1 (the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Acquisition), Range-I and II, Ahmedabad), Form No. 37EE under rule 48DD read with section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is the further say of the petitioner that the competent a...
Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: [1992]195ITR518(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The assessee is a financial corporation constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, with the object of promotion of industrial development in the State by providing long-term finance to medium and small scale industries. By a notification issued under section 8 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, that Act was made applicable to the assessee-Corporation and, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 48 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the board of directors of the assessee-Corporation constituted a fund known as the 'Gujarat State Financial Corporation Employees' Provident Fund' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Fund'). Under regulation 4 of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation Employees' Provident Fund Regulation, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'), the fund was created and as provided in regulation 5, the fund was to be held by the Corporation and administered by a board of administrators. Regulation 10 provid...
Chief Officer, Bhavnagar Nagarpalika Vs. Meghjibhai Ugabhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR847; (1995)IIILLJ527Guj
Divecha, J.1. By means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the Judgment and order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act for brief) on 30th October, 1979 in Minimum Wages Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 2 to 7 of 1978. Thereunder the Authority under the Act accepted the claim of each individual workman to the extent of the short payment made to him by the petitioner and also awarded compensation to the tune of four times the excess amount awarded to him thereunder. A copy of the Judgment and order passed by the Authority under the Act is annexed as Exh. 'A' to this petition. In the process of challenging the Judgment and order at Exh. 'A' to this petition, the petitioner has also sought declaration that provisions contained in Section 20(3)(i) of the Act are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are not many. Responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »