Gujarat Court February 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Veenaben Vadilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR156(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court 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 capital loss arising on sale of shares of Rajesh Textile Mills Ltd. by the trustees of the trust of which the assessee was a beneficiary as also the settlor can be set off against the individual income of the assessee from capital gains (2) Whether the Tribunal justified in law in holding that, while determining the income falling under the head 'Capital gains'. The Income-tax Officer was bound to consider the capital loss which had arisen in the hands of the trust as, unless the said loss is taken into consideration, the assessee's total income cannot be computed in accordance with law ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a beneficiary under the Veenaben Vadilal Trust. The assessee possessed shares of Sayaji Mills Limited. As a sharebolder of Sayaj...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: [1995]212ITR433(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The petitioner is a public limited company. It submitted a return of income in August 24, 1978. The Income-tax Officer in terms of section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, forwarded a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee on March 30, 1981. The assessee filed its objections on April 10, 1981. In view of the objections filed by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer forwarded the draft order together with the objections to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Hearing was fixed before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on June 17, 1981. Before that the petitioner had submitted a revised return of income to the Income-tax Officer on June 15, 1981. So on the 17th, it pointed out to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that it had filed a revised return. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ignoring the revised return filed by the petitioner, passed a final assessment order on June 23, 1981. As the petitioner's revised return has not been taken...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhava ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Guj)303; [1992]198ITR598(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions to this court 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, while computing income under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, depreciation has to be allowed 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that, having regard to the Scheme of the Act, 'income' referred to in section 11(1)(a) of the Act is to be computed not in accordance with the provisions of the Act the but in accordance with the normal rules of accountancy under which the depreciation has to be allowed while computing such income under section 11(1)(a) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is a trust registered under the Public Trusts Act. The income of the assessee in mainly form immovable property. In the returns of income filed for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the assessee claimed depreciation and calculated i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Daksha Ramanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Guj)207; [1992]197ITR123(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 25,000 paid by her for redemption of the mortgage for the purpose of computing capital gains ?' 2. The facts giving rise to that question, briefly stated, are as under : One Surottam Hathising was the owner of land, admeasuring 584 sq. yards. He gifted half of that land to the assessee and the other half to Automi Harsh Hathising. Thus, the assessee received 292 sq. yards and became the owner of it. She sold the same during the accounting year ending on October 19, 1971, for Rs. 59,956. In the return filed for that year, she disclosed capital gain of Rs. 29,125 on the sale of the said land. Apart from other deduction with which we are not concern...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Alias Tulsidas Narsinhdas Patel Vs. Mukta Sagar Mandal and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2103; (1992)1GLR777
ORDERJ.N. Bhatt, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 15), Ahmedabad, on 30-6-1985 in a Criminal Case No. 3198 of 1982, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1973 ('Code' for short hereinafter).2. The facts giving rise to the present revision, may be stated, at this stage. The petitioner filed criminal case No. 3198 of 1983 in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad againstt the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Section 42 of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973. The trial Magistrate after taking cognizance issued notice to the respondents. The evidence of the complainant was also recorded by the Trial Magistrate. During the course of the recording of the evidence of the complainant, respondents Nos. 1 to 5, who are original accused persons in that criminal case submitted an application, dated 17/4/1984, requesting the criminal C...
Tag this Judgment!Jitubhai Shanabhai Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR832
B.C. Patel, J.1. Mr. Anandjiwala, learned Counsel has preferred this bail application. He has relied upon First Information Report (Annexure 'A') and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in bail application No. 86 of 1992 for enlarging the petitioner on bail (Annexure 'B'). After perusing the said documents, as this Court was not inclined to admit the matter, the learned Counsel requested the Court to permit him to withdraw the application on the ground that if permission is not granted, he will not be in a position to file another bail application.2. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') empowers the Police officer to investigate any cognizable case. Section 157 of the Code contemplates procedure for investigation. Sections 158, 159, 160 and 161 of the Code empower the Police officer to forward his report, hold investigation or preliminary inquiry and it also empowers him to call upon any person being acquainted with the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nirupamaben P. Modi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR752(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. By his will dated August 29, 1952, Bhagubhai Chunilal had bequeathed the ground floor of his bungalow in favour of his widowed daughter-in-law, Subhadhrabai, and her daughter, Nirupamaben, and created a right of residence therein during their life time. After their death, the property was to go to his three sons. During the assessment year 1982-83, the mother and the daughter surrendered their respective life interests in the said property in favour of the three sons of the testator for a consideration of Rs. 1,38,000 each. The Income-tax Officer determined the fair market value of the property at Rs. 10,000 as on January 1, 1964, and, after allowing permissible deductions, subjected the balance of Rs. 73,800 to capital gains tax in the case of the daughter. It may be stated that, so far as the mother's case is concerned, the mother had claimed exemption in her return and that case was accepted under section 143(1) of the Act. 2. The assessee, i.e., daughter, prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Amalgamat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR716(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has filed this application, as the Tribunal has refused to refer to this court the question proposed by him. The question which the Commissioner wanted the Tribunal to refer to this court reads as under : 'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein he had set said set aside the assessment order for the limited purposed of considering the deductibility of Rs. 2,20,533 under section 80V by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. The Tribunal, in terms, has found that no part of profit arising from the undertaking and business of the assessee for the year prior to February 28, 1977, had been transferred to Elscope Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the Department has assessed the profit for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 in the hands of the assessee-company and not in the hands of the transferee-company...
Tag this Judgment!H.T. Power Structure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC321; 1992(60)ELT565(Guj)
Ravani, J. 1. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of making of parts of transmission power structure, fabricated steel structure for Railways Electric sub-stations etc. which according to the petitioner is covered under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the petitioner, the goods manufactured by it are not liable to excise duty at all because the process of cutting and straightening of the parts of iron and steel is not covered by the definition of manufacture contained in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that CEGAT decided in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Dodsal Private Limited, Baroda reported in 1987 (38) E.L.T. 352 that the aforesaid process did not amount to manufacture. Thereupon the petitioner filed application for refund of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 18,78,434.39 for the period commencing from January 1987 to June 1987 and also claimed an amount o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhucha Dhana Danger and ors. Vs. Jiviben Madeva Lukhel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ1093; (1992)2GLR377
R.K.Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 8th October, 1991 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj, allowing the application of the respondents condoning the delay in preferring the claim petition. There is no dispute about the fact that the delay of over 14 years has been caused because the original applicants were minors. The M.A.C.T. resorting to the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act and having regard to the fact that the applicants were minors condoned the delay in the application which was made on 10th July, 1990.2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Motor Vehicles Act was a complete code in itself and since a statutory period was prescribed in Section 166(3) of the Act in respect of an application for compensation, it was not open to the Tribunal to condone the delay which was much beyond the statutorily prescribed period of one year. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »