Gujarat Court March 1992 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pranlal P. Doshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Guj)130; [1993]201ITR756(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, applying the provision of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the business of the assessee in processing cotton seeds and running a solvent extraction plant was deemed to have been carried on during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question and, consequently, the assessee was entitled to the allowance of loss of Rs. 31,452 as claimed by it ?' 2. In order to appreciate the scope and ambit of this question, certain background facts become necessary to be noted at this stage. The respondent-assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71. The financial year ended on March 31, 1970. The assessee formerly was having business at Veraval in cotton seed processing and an oil extraction plant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandravati Atmaram Patel Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR675(Guj)
S.D Shah, J. 1. On being moved under section 27 of the Wealth-tax, 1957 (hereafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our determination : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the land in question was non-agricultural land ?' 2. In order to answer the said question, it would be necessary for us to set out the relevant facts herein : (i) The assessee is an individual and the relevant assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment and included in the wealth of the assessee the value of two pieces of land bearing S. Nos. 51/1/11 and 51/1/2/2/2. The contention of the assessee that the said percales of land were agricultural lands and were, therefore, not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee was negatived by the Wealth-tax Officer on his finding that the said percales of land...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.P. Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1992
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Guj)39; [1993]199ITR654(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J.1. On being moved under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was Justified in law in holding that the assessee having filled the estimate of advance tax payable by him under section 212(3A) of the Act before the due date but failing to make payment of advance tax in accordance with the said estimate, penalty under section 273(2)(c) of the Act cannot be levied ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it will be necessary to have a glance at a few relevant facts which are stated herein :(i) The assessee is an individual who derived his income from salary, property as well ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Baroda Industrial Development Corporati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Guj)415; [1992]198ITR716(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. In this reference, the question which are required to consider is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 58,164 is an allowable business deduction. The question has been referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee-company is carrying on the business of providing services and facilities, such as electricity, water, railway siding, etc., to industrial units. In the return of its income filed for the assessment year 1968-69, the company claimed expenses of Rs. 3,44,499 as revenue expenses. Under that head, it had included Rs. 58,164, being the initial cost of underground electric cables. The said cables were purchased by it for supplying electricity to various block holders, as the old overhead wiring was causing problems like breakdown, etc. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for said expenditure as revenue expendit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salt and Allied Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR233(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to 100 per cent. depreciation in respect of earthen work of kyaras, pans, reservoirs and road and other units, irrespective of the fact that such assets were built prior to the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in question ?'2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing salt and selling the same. In its return for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed 100 per cent. depreciation in respect of earthen work, salt pans, reservoirs and roads. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the same on the ground that the said assets were not brought into use during the year of account. The appeal filed by the assessee against the said order was a...
Tag this Judgment!Patel PravIn Kumar Somnath and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Land Development ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ916Guj
1. By these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners have called upon this Court to decide the question of their status vis-a-vis the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation. It is the case of the petitioners that the employer-employee relations exist between the Corporation and themselves, while it is the case of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioners were the apprentices appointed under Apprenticeship contract, and their relations were governed by specific stipulations contained in written contracts. 2. The Gujarat State Land Development Corporation has, in its meeting, dated November 1, 1991 passed two resolutions at Item Nos. 9 & 19 under which it is resolved that the apprentices employed under National Watershed Development Programme shall not be continued beyond a period of one year and to take appropriate action in that behalf and obviously the appropriate action is to relieve such apprentices on the expiry of a period of one year. These ...
Tag this Judgment!Mer Ramda Vejunandbhai and Etc. Vs. Hardasbhai Parbatbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ399; AIR1992Guj122; (1992)2GLR976
ORDER1. Does the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 restrict/limit the power of the Claims Tribunal to condone the delay caused in filing application for compensation to a period of 12 months from the date of occurrence of accident? Does the proviso exclude expressly or otherwise the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or principle underlying said Section 5 to an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the application for compensation? -- These are the twin questions posed for consideration in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. These two petitions under Article 227 of the, Constitution of India are directed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar, dated 18th July, 1991 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 56 / 91 and 60 / 91 respectively. By the said impugned judgment and order the Tribunal has rejected the applications of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Pravinkumar Somnath and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Land Development ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)1GLR728
S.D. Shah, J.1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have called upon this Court to decide the question of their status, vis-a-vis, the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation. It is the case of the petitioners that the employer-employee relations exist between the Corporation and themselves while it is the case of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioners were the apprentices appointed under Apprenticeship contract, and their relations were governed by specific stipulations contained in written contracts.2. The Gujarat State Land Development Corporation has, in its meeting, dated 1-11-1991 passed two resolutions at Item No. 9 & 19 under which it is resolved that the apprentice employed under National Watershed Development Programme shall not be continued beyond a period of one year and to take appropriate action in that behalf and obviously the appropriate action is to relieve such apprentices on the expiry of a period of one year....
Tag this Judgment!Mer Ramdas Bejanand Bhai Vs. Harshad Bhai Mala Bhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC717
S.D. Shah, J.1. Does the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 restrict/limit the power of the Claims Tribunal to condone the delay caused in filing application for compensation to a period of 12 months from the date of occurrence of accident? Does the proviso exclude expressly or otherwise the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or principle underlying said Section 5 to an application for condemnation of delay caused in filing the application for compensation?--These are the twin questions posed for consideration in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar, dated 18th July 1991 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos 56/91 and 60/91 respectively. By the said impugned judgment and order the Tribunal has rejected the applications of the petitioner i...
Tag this Judgment!Sakarpatal Vibhag Jangal Kamdar Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR685(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner-society is a co-operative society of labourers and is engaged in the business of forest coupe-cutting. The trees are cut by the society and then sold by it. The profit is shared by the society and the Government on 80 : 20 basis. The members of the petitioner-society are mostly residing in the forest area. The work of coupe-cutting is done by the members of the society by contributing labour.2. For the assessment year 1983-84, the petitioner-society claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income earned by it by sale of such forest produce. The Income-tax Officer granted exemption, but the Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of his revisional powers, disallowed the same. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal to the Tribunal. That appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation. Meanwhile, pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional powers ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »