Gujarat Court October 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravindra C. Gajiwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR157(Guj)
S.D. Dave, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench 'A', has referred the undermentioned question for our opinion, exercising the jurisdiction under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the remission of trading liability obtained by way of Kasar by the assessee can be taxed only if it falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee happens to be a firm and a dealer. The assessment year is 1971-72, the Samvat year being 2026, and the relevant period will be between November 10, 1969, and September 30, 1970. The assessee-firm was a dealer in cloth and used to sell and purchase the goods through certain brokers, including a broker known as Messrs. Jagdish Hiralal. Through the said broker, the assessee-firm has supplied goods to certain dealers, namely, Vijay Fabrics and Mahesh Textiles. They had purc...
Tag this Judgment!Kalusinh Gamalsinh Vs. Deputy Secretary, Home Department and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1278
S.D. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. D.N. Patel, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent-State waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned Advocates of parties the matter is finally heard today.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat, dated 21st June, 1991 whereby in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Government under Rule 189(B) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, he has ordered that an amount of Rs. 75/- per month shall be deducted from the pension payable to the petitioner for a period of five years and he has further directed that such penalty shall be implemented from the date of the order. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.3. Mr. Thakkar. learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged bsfore This Court that the impugned order passed by the authority is...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Dave, Dy. Director and ors. Vs. Government of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR470
N.J. Pandya, J.1. All these matters involve a common question relating to Deputy Directors in the Bureau of Economics and Statistics, a Department of the Government of Gujarat. The petitioners in all the three petitions at the relevant time were working as Deputy Directors and there were grievances about pay scale that has been given to them under Desai Pay Commission. As the Commission has been referred to by the State Government and its Officers on various occasions pertaining to the petitioners as Second Pay Commissions (SPC for short), I shall refer to it in that manner only. The Bureau of Economics and Statistics was created in the then Bombay Province in the year 1946 and had continued after merger and reorganisation of the State of Bombay. On coming into existence of the State of Gujarat since May 1990, the Bureau was made a Department of the Government of Gujarat on 19-1-1961. Thereafter, the Gujarat State Statistics Service (GSS) comprising Statistical Personnel working in var...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Ship Breakers and ors. Etc. Vs. Jt. Chief Controller of Imports ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Guj61
ORDERS PASSED IN THIS GROUP OF PETITIONS:11. Now we would refer to various interim orders passed by this Court. When the matter was first placed before this Court for admission hearing on 15th March, 1990 the learned single Judge had issued notice returnable on 22nd March, 1990. The respondent-Board was directed to disclose the names and addresses of the persons in whose favour decision to allot plots at Alang Ship-breaking Yard was taken. On 27th March, 1990 the matter was placed for admission before A. P. Ravani, J. and the Court had passed the following order:'Rule. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the matter is required to be referred to D.B. Hence referred to D.B. ad interim relief granted earlier to continue till 31-3-1990. The petitioner is directed to complete the office formalities latest by 28-3-1990 and thereafter move the appropriate Division Bench for further orders. It is further stated that if ship of respondent-Laxmi Steel Rolling Mills Unit-2 is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dilawar Syndicate (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: [1995]213ITR589(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. Though these references pertain to three different assesses and eight assessment years, they were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment as the questions referred to this court are identical. 2. From the facts stated by the Tribunal and on the basis of the record, it appears that Husain Kasam Dada, the assessee in W.T.R. No. 1 of 1979 and Mommad Sidiqu Maji Rahimtula, the assessee in W.T.R. No. 2 of 1979 and Valimohmed Rahimtulla, the assessee in W.T.R. No. 3 of 1979 are neither citizens of India nor residing in India. However they had received income in India from the advances made to or deposits kept with Dilawar Syndicate (P) Ltd., Junagadh. On May 14, 1971, Dilawar Syndicate (P) Ltd. filed returns for all the three assessees for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1970-71. While passing the assessment orders, the Wealth-tax Officer also passed orders for issuance of show-cause notices under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), fo...
Tag this Judgment!Naranbhai Virabhai and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR1017(Guj)
S.D. Dave, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the undermentioned questions to us for our answer at the instance of the assessee, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 29,968 is justified (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty is justified is sustainable in law (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that penalty is justified in law is not based on appreciation of irrelevant material and ignoring relevant evidence on record (4) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the penalty imposed is justified in law is based on application of correct principles of law and is not perverse and unreasonable ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71 in respect of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Labour Association, Bhadra, Ahmedabad Vs. Official Liquidator ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ383Guj
1. The Textile Labour Association has moved this application for directing respondent No. 1, i.e. the Official Liquidator to pay to the workmen their dues of Rs. 24,03,366-55 being the amount payable to them in lieu of unenjoyed privilege leave standing to their credit, and also for directing the Official Liquidator to pay by way of remuneration Rs. 2,000/- to the clerks, who had prepared the statement of claim of the workmen at the instance of the Court. 2. So far as payment to be made to the clerks is concerned, the objection which has been raised on behalf of the secured creditor i.e. the State Bank of India, is that the amount of Rs. 22,000/- is on a higher side. It was also submitted that this amount being in the nature of costs, should be ordered to be paid only at the end, that is when the final orders are passed in the winding-up petition. As it was difficult for the workmen to prepare the statement of claim and the Official Liquidator also would have been put to much trouble, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mavjibhai Rudabhai Dafda Vs. Manji Soma Dangar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ589; (1994)1GLR21
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. A short but substantial question which has surfaced in this appeal is as to whether a contractor working for the Government could be held liable for compensation in a claim petition preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act and based on fault liability on account of a road accident causing death of a workman while doing the road rolling work?2. In order to appreciate the merits of the aforesaid point in focus, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts and circumstances leading to this appeal.3. The appellant is the original opponent No. 5, whereas the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are the original claimants and respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9 are the original opponent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and they are hereinafter referred to as the 'original claimants' and 'original opponents' for the sake of convenience and brevity.4. The accident in question occurred on 20.3.1981 at about 3.30 p.m. on Karmal Dam site in Rajkot District. One deceased Hari Vala was knocked down and crush...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar Bone and Fertilizer Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR994(Guj)
S.D. Dave, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench 'A', has referred the undermentioned set of questions to us for our opinion and answer, in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions relate to two aspects of the 'liability to pay bonus' - its extent and the year in which the deductions as expenses could have been claimed : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming disallowance of bonus of Rs. 15,178 on an altogether new ground which was not made out by the lower authorities 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in permitting the Revenue to raise an altogether new ground regarding allowance of bonus for the first time in appeal before it and whether it was justified in holding that the liability to bonus was not referable to the year under reference ?' 2. The broad features in the background ...
Tag this Judgment!Navinbhai Bhogilal Soni Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR836
N.J. Pandya, J. 1. This is an application for review of an order which came to be passed in Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 on 31-7-1992 by us. The order passed in Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 which is sought to be reviewed reads as under:After arguing the matter for quite some time, Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Rule discharged.2. The fact that the order was passed in Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1992 and further fact that a criminal application has been filed for getting it reviewed prima facie itself may appear to be non-maintainable because so far as the Criminal Law is concerned, there is no provision for review. However, neither the learned A,P.P. Mr. Rawal appearing for the State nor learned Advocate Mr. B. B. Naik appearing for the Union of India has raised this point and very correctly so, because the matter involves ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »