Gujarat Court September 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.
Consolidated Petrotech Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Guj)16; [1993]202ITR306(Guj)
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Mr. M. R. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is ordered to be heard today. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company having two factories in the State of Gujarat and one in the State of West Bengal and having its registered office at Baroda. The petitioner prays that the order passed by the respondent withholding the refund amount of Rs. 11,49,345 (rupees eleven lakhs forty-nine thousand three hundred and forty-five) which is due to the petitioner as a result of the assessment order dated January 23, 1992, be quashed and set aside. 3. The assessment year concerned is 1991-92. The petitioner submitted the return of loss of Rs. 10,63,61,760 on December 30, 1991. The respondent passed the order under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on January 23, 1992. As per this order, an amount of Rs. 11,49,345 is computed as an amount of refund payable to the petitioner. B...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narbada Valley Chemical Industries Pvt. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Guj)15
G. T. NANAVATI, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions to this Court under s. 256(1) the IT Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction of the amount of gratuity of Rs. 1,71,000 against its assessable business profits under s. 37 or in the alternative under s. 28 of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,089 cannot be treated as entertainment expenditure disallowable as such under s. 37(2B) of the IT Act. 1961 ?'2. The points which arise for our consideration in this reference are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court and by this Court respectively and therefore, it is not necessary to state the facts or to give reasons in support of our opinion. The question whether the assessee would be entitled to deduction for its gratuity liabil...
Natverlal Dahyabhai Mehta (Late) Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR219(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The following four questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : '1. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the valuation of the open plot at Rs. 1,87,700, as adopted by the First Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, without reducing the value on account of prohibition in the Gujarat Vacant Land in Urban Area (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, as part of the condition existing in the open market 2. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the aggregation of properties under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act 3. Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in inferring that there was goodwill of the business of the two firms in which the deceased was a partner 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trib...
Minal A. Mehta Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Guj)438; [1993]200ITR216(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three question to this court for its opinion under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : '1. Whether the share of the lineal descendants of the deceased are required to be aggregated for the rate purposes for computing the principal value of the estate under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act 2. Whether the estate duty payable on the estate is liable to deducted as a prior charge on the estate under-section 74 or even otherwise, for the purpose of computation of the principal value of the estate 3. Whether Rs. 24,000 being 80 per cent of Rs. 30,000 is liable to be added to the principal value of the estate as the value of outstanding professional fees on the date of death of the deceased 2. Briefly stated the facts are that A. B. Mehta, who was an advocate, died on October 13, 1973. The above three question arose during the estate duty assessment proceedings pertaining to the estate of the dece...
Vallabhai Kalyanbhai Sutariya Vs. Divisional Controller, Gujarat State ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1159; (1994)IILLJ348Guj
Divecha, J. 1. The judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Rajkot on December 27, 1984 in Reference (LCR) No. 511 of 1982 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereby, the Reference came to be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner herein did not answer thedefinitionof the 'workman' contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for brief). 2. The only reason given by the Labour Court for rejecting the Reference on the ground that the petitioner herein was not a workman was that his salary was in excess of Rs. 1,000/- on the date of the Reference. It appears that the Labour Court has lost sight of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1981 ('the Amend-ing Act' for brief). By this Amending Act, the limit of Rs. 1,000/- specified in Section 2(s)(iv) of the Act was raised from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,600/-. This Amending Act has come into force with effect from Augu...
Ekta Arvindkumar Shah (Minor) and anr. Vs. H.S. Shah and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Guj90
ORDERA.P. Ravani, J.1. Two students who have passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination -- qualifying examination for being admitted to First M.B.B.S. course -- have filed two separate petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 4(1), 5 and 9 of the Rules for Admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course in Smt. N. H. L. Municipal Medical College, framed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. One student being minor, the petition -- special civil application No. 5373 of 1992 -- is filed through his father and natural guardian. The students concerned have not been considered eligible for being admitted to the first M.B.B.S. course on the ground that they are not 'local students' as defined in Rule 5 of the Rules for Admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course (for short 'the Rules'). They have also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider them eligible for admission to the First M.B.B.S. course and be further directed to include their names in the merit list an...
Rameshchandra K. Patwa and ors. Vs. Vithaldas Chimanlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Guj114; (1993)1GLR193
ORDERC.K. Thakkar, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the petitioners-original defendants 1 to 5 against the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.2. To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated. The opponents-plaintiffs filed H.R.P. Suit No. 137 of 1973 in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad against the petitioners and one S.D. Shah and Co. (defendant 6) to recover possession of the suit premises bearing Municipal Census No. 1956 situated opposite English Cinema, Khadia, Ahmedabad, inter alia on the ground that defendant 2 and 3 who were the lawful tenants of the suit property had illegally and unlawfully sub-let a portion thereof to defendants 4 to 6. It was also alleged that defendants 2 and 3 were in arrears of rent from October 1, 1971, and they had committed breach of terms of tenancy. On those allegations, the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a registered notice and they were called ...
N.K. Parmar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1508
M.B. Shah, J.1. In this group of petitions, it is prayed by the Government employees, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation employees and the employees of the Accountant General, Gujarat, that the Government should be directed to sell them the tenements, which are allotted to them as employees for residential purpose during their service tenure. The dispute pertains to 'F', 'G', 'K' and Meghaninagar Housing Colonies (which are situated in the area known as Asarwa Chamanpura) and few tenements constructed by S.T. Corporation at Nadiad, Baroda and other cities.2. It is the contention of the petitioners that 'F', 'G' and Meghaninager Housing Colonies were constructed by the Housing Board in the year 1959-60 at the price of Rs. 3600/- per tenement; on the bifurcation of the bilingual State of Bombay, the State of Gujarat was formed on 1st May, 1960; for accommodating the Government employees the State of Gujarat took the Colonies 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G'. 'H' and 'L' from t...
Commissioner of Surtax Vs. New India Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Guj)406; [1993]202ITR619(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Though this Income-tax reference is registered as Income-tax Reference No. 217 of 1978 only as proceeding arising out of common judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concerning appeals for four assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-1970, and 1970-71, and as there were separate appeals before the Tribunal or these year and there were also cross appeal therein, these references are ordered to be split up and are ordered to be registered as Income-tax References Nos. 217, 217A, 217B, and 217C of 1978. Office is directed accordingly. 2. Though different question have been referred for our opinion assessment year-wise, we have thought it fit to reproduce herein below the referred questions topic-wise. Topic I : 3. The question pertaining to the legality of the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer. Assessment year 1967-68 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in adm...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohanlal Ranchhoddas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Guj)22; [1993]203ITR304(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J. 1. On being directed by this Court under s. 256(2) of IT Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for our opinion : '(1) Whether, the claim of the assessee, namely, that it converted investment in Atul Products and Arvind Mills shares as stock-in-trade on 9th November, 1961, i.e., being opening day of S.Y. 2018, and utilised the same for the purpose of ready business, is supported by evidence on record and consequently whether the claim of the respondent is admissible in law ?' '(2) Whether, the loss of Rs. 5,28,578 for asst. yr. 1963-64 as claimed by the assessee is allowable in accordance with the provisions of s. 43(5) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' '(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining the appeal of the assessee, rejecting the preliminary objection of the Revenue that the point at controversy was concluded by the decision of the Tribunal in IT Appeal Nos....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »