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.
ismail Nathabhai Khatri Vs. Muljibhai Shankerbhai Brahmabhatt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Guj8; (1992)2GLR739
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Whether the questioned document constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale or sale out-right is the main question which has surfaced in this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short).2. A few material facts leading to the rise of the present Second Appeal may be stated, at this stage. The appellant herein is the original defendant and the respondent herein is the original plaintiff. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff and 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience and brevity.3. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1970 for redemption of the mortgaged property admeasuring 29 gunthas being a part of S. No. 174, situated in the sim of village Achhalia, Taluka Jhagadia, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'. According to the case of the plaintiff, he entered into a registered document dated 5-4-1948 in respect of the suit land, which was in the nature of a mortgage by conditional sa...
Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite and Allied Industries Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC17
S.D. Dave, J. 1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of these two sales tax references arising under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 2. Sales Tax Reference No. 10 of 1987 : In this reference the applicant, M/s. Saurashtra Calcine Bauxite and Allied Industries has been carrying on the business of manufacturing of calcined bauxite, etc., at Porbandar. It is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Under sub-section (2) of section 49 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to exempt by issuing the necessary notification any specified class of sales or purchases from the payment of whole or part of the tax payable under the Act. Rule 42A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970 (now hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provides that the commissioner shall subject to the conditions laid down in the sub-rule grant drawback, set-off, or refund of the whole or part of the tax in respect of the puchase of raw materials, processi...
Ramaben W/O. Amratlal Dayalji Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)2GLR1530
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Would Revisional Courts have to keep in mind while hearing revisional applications more particularly arising from maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Cr. P.C.' for brief) is the main question arising in this revisional application preferred by the unfortunate wife against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari on 17th May, 1991 in Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 1990. Thereby the learned Sessions Judge accepted the revisional application of respondent No. 2 herein and upset the order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Gandevi on 28th February 1990 in Maintenance Application No. 9 of 1987. It may be mentioned that the learned trial Magistrate accepted the Maintenance Application preferred by the present petitioner and awarded to her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month.2. The facts giving rise to this revisional applicatio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surat Jilla Kamdar Sahakari Sangh Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR157(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J. 1. On being moved by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 16,750 was allowable as revenue expenditure ?' 2. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we found that the question referred to us is required to be reframed so as to give proper effect to the question in fact arising from the statement of the case stated by the Tribunal. The question is, accordingly, reframed as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 16,750 was allowable by way of overriding payment to the Government ?' 3. In order to answer the aforesaid question, it would be necessary to set out a few relevant facts herein : (i) The assessee is a co-operative society. It received a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Guj)272; [1993]201ITR325(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has got the following question referred for our opinion in this case : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that section 80J(6A) merely requires that the audit report should be so furnished so that it would be available at the time of assessmen ?' 2. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy underlined in the question, it is necessary to get the introductory facts. They are as under : The assessee-concern is functioning at Rajkot. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The accounting year was the year ending on June 30, 1975. The assessee filed its return on June 29, 1976. It claimed the benefit flowing from section 80J of the Income-tax Act, as applicable at the relevant time. Along with the return, the audit report was not filed. However, before the Income-tax Officer could frame the assessment after processing the return, the audit report ...
Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Guj)79; [1993]202ITR111(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J.1. 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to a deduction of Rs. 20,03,560 in the assessment year 1975-76 on account of liability for gratuity (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in permitting the Department to raise the contention for the first time before the Tribunal that the assessee had adopted the cash system of accounting in respect of liability for gratuity, when the matter had proceeded before the lower authorities on the admitted footing that the system of accounting adopted was mercantile (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee adopted cash system of accounting for the purpose of liability for gratuity for the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. In order to answer ...
Bansilal Harilal Jaiswal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR374
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Mehmedabad on 31st January, 1989 in Criminal Case No. 1086 of 1986 as affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Nadied on 31st August, 1990 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1989 is under challenge in this revisional application preferred by original accused No. 1.2. The petitioner herein was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for brief) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of rupees ons hundred in default of which rigorous imprisonment for 15 days more.3. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner herein was in the employment of one Sinhuj Dudh Utpadak Sahkari Mandli (the Society for convenience) at the relevant time. According to the prosecution case, he and one Somabhai were found to have misappropriated...
Miss Shilpa Bansilal Shah Vs. Bansilal K. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR223
K.J. Vaidya, J. 1. 'Whether a Court granting an ad interim or final award of maintenance to the discarded, disabled dependents, should rest itself, contended, thus far only and not further, merely stopping at the passing -of the said award, and thereafter necessarily wait for sometime to help them out to realize the amount so awarded till only, if, as and when they so approach it once again, following the second bout of the legal duel by way of execution of the impugned award either by taking-up further proceedings by way of executive and/or the Contempt proceedings Or 'Whether alternatively, following the call of humanistic approach and the speedy justice as promised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the concerned Court should immediately volunteer and take upon itself the sacred duty to render easy and expeditious substantial justice by seeing that the amount awarded is immediately made available to the claimants in a manner which may not only ultimately save them from f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR250(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the allowance of an amount of Rs. 42,55,540 being provision for gratuity payable to the members of the staff under section 40A(7) of the Act ?' '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the conditions of section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were satisfied and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the claim of the allowance of Rs. 42,55,540 being provision for gratuity payable to the members of the staff ?' 2. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it is necessary for us to reproduce herein a few relevant facts : (i) The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing and selling medicines ...
Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Guj)313; [1993]202ITR214(Guj)
S.B. Majumdar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, two questions have been referred in this reference for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,530 incurred by way of filing fees for increasing authorised capital was a capital expenditure (2) Whether, in view of the facts and law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax liability was not deductible in the computation of business income as revenue expenditure ?' 2. A few introductory facts are required to be noted at the very outset to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter. 3. The assessee is a public limited company functioning at Baroda. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The corresponding calendar year ended on December 31, 1970. The assessee-company carries on the business of manufacturing and selling of glasswares and glass bottles. The assessment was completed by the I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »