Gujarat Court January 1993 Judgments
Valjibhai H. Patel Vs. S.N. Sundaram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR807
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of Special Civil Application No. 7300 of 1992 which was filed by the appellant who claimed to be a public spirited citizen interested in purity of administration of justice and a prayer was made that the order dated October 9, 1992 promoting respondent No. 7 from the post of Asstt. District Judge to the post of Joint District Judge be quashed and set aside as being bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, suffering from the vice of favouritism, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 233 read with Article 216 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A notice was issued on the petition to respondent No. 6, Registrar of High Court and affidavit-in-reply and further affidavits by the petitioner were filed. The petition was also amended by adding paras 6(A), (B) and (C) and adding prayers (AA) and (CC). Ultimately, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had no lo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sahitya Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Guj)186; [1993]203ITR349(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati. J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the condition precedent in section 13(2)(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not fulfilled in this case because that condition requires a positive act on the part of the trustees to invest the funds of the trust in certain concerns in which the persons referred to in section 13(3) have substantial interest and because such funds were not invested in purchasing the shares which were donated to the trust (2) Whether the burden lay on the Revenue to show that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act applied in the case of the assessee in view of Explanation 3 to that section (3) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the case of the assessee was not hit by the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!indequip Chemdye (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR280(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. These two references arise out of the assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. During the years ended on September 30, 1972, and September 30, 1973, the assessee was required to pay Rs. 3,084 and Rs. 3,148 as penalty to the State Government under section 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, for the default committed by it, viz., failing to pay tax due within the prescribed time. The assessee claimed deduction of these amounts. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the said claim on the ground that the payment which was made was by way of penalty and, therefore, not an allowable expenditure. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner succeeded and the addition of these amounts was ordered to be deleted. The Revenue, therefore, preferred two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by two separate orders, allowed the two appeals holding that the payments which were made by the assessee were for in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mana G. Sarabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR366(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following 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 provisions of section 52(1) or 52(2) have been validly invoked by the Income-tax Officer in the present case (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee could not be disallowed ?' 2. Both the questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue as the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Office was not justified in invoking section 52(1) of the Income-tax Act in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The question arose out of the claim made by the assessee in respect of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction. The Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. ITO : [1981]131ITR597(SC) has held that sub-section (2) of section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Starch Products Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR386(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred question No. 1 at the instance of the assessee and question No. 2 at the instance of the Revenue for the opinion of this court. The said questions are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation of Rs. 9,713 on the written down value of building and plant used for research relating to the business of the company (2) Whether, while computing the capital employed for the purpose of relief under, section 80J, debts and liabilities are required to be deducted ?' 2. The points which arise for our consideration are covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India : [1993]199ITR43(SC) . The Supreme Court has held that (headnote) : 'Before the 1980 amendment, the 1961 Act did not permit a deduction for depreciation in respect of the cost of a capital asset acquired for purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!Udyan Gajjar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR224(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following 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, even if gift-tax is levied on the differences between the alleged fair market value and the actual sale price, still, in law, capital gains tax also can be levied on the said amount (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act could be applied only if the condition as to existence of object of avoidance or reduction of assessee's liability under section 45 to capital gains was satisfied (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purpose of section 52(1) the existence of the assessee's object of avoidance or reduction of his liability under section 45 could not be held established except in a case where the receipt by the assessee of a consideration over and above the ...
Tag this Judgment!Maneka Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR50
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions involve common questions and arise from the similar facts and are claiming similar reliefs and therefore, both are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The petitioners pray that the Government order dated 29-8-1992 Annexure 'O' issued under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed and set aside and the Government be directed to make an award and complete acquisition proceedings and pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 92/- per sq. mtr., i.e., Rs. 98,28,728/- to the petitioners in the first petition and a corresponding amount in the other petition. It is mainly contended that the possession of the land had been taken by the Government and, therefore, the Government had no power to withdraw from the acquisition and reliance has been placed on the language of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR561(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The following three questions have been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the ITO withdrawing the development rebate of Rs. 6,67,351 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that it could not be said that there had been, utilisation of the development rebate reserve by the assessee at all and that it could not also be said that the assessee by merely effecting the transfer of the development rebate reserve account to the general reserve account utilised the statutory reserve for any of the prohibited purposes specified under s. 34(3)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that on acquisition of assets of the value of more than the development rebate res...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanbhai Kashibhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Guj)83; [1993]203ITR57(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Both these references are in respect of the same assessee and the same assessment year. Both of them are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The assessee gifted 8,000 shares of Gaskets and Radiators Private Limited to three family members on April 28, 1976. The shares were transferred in the names of the trustees on December 28, 1976. The assessee tiled the gift-tax return and valued the shares at the rate of Rs. 243 per share following the break-up value method. For that purpose, the assessee had adopted the balance-sheet of the company as at December 31, 1974, that being the last audited balance-sheet of the company on the day on which the gifts were made. The Gift-tax Officer was of the view that the break-up value was required to be ascertained on the basis of the balance-sheet as at December 31, 1975, as the shares were transferred in the names of the trustees in the name of the trust on December 28, 1976, and by that time, the balance-sheet as ...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Amrutlal Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)1GLR416
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Petitioner-Pankaj Amrutlal, the convict prisoner undergoing lifer at the Central Prisons, Ahmedabad, by this Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court challenging the impugned order dated 6-11-1992 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ahmedabad rejecting his second furlough leave application on the short ground of the alleged adverse police opinion, inter alia praying for granting the same on his personal-bond forthwith.2. Mrs. S. S. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer R. I. for life for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment and order dated 23-8-1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Mrs. Patel further submitted that the petitioner is in Jail since last more than 6 years; including some period undergone as an under-trial prisoner. It was further submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »