Gujarat Court October 1993 Judgments
Sunil J. Kinariwala Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Guj)479; [1995]217ITR127(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm known as 'Kinarivala R.J.K. Industries', Ahmedabad. The assessee was having 10% share in the said partnership firm. On 27th Dec., 1973, he created a trust called 'Sunil Jivanlal Kinarivala Trust' by executing the trust deed. As per the trust deed, beneficiaries were Smt. Daksha Sharadbhai Kinariwala, who is assessee's brother's wife, minor Avani Bharatbhai Kinariwala, who is assessee's niece and Smt. Indumatiben Kinariwala, who is assessee's mother. By the said trust deed, the assessee has settled in trust, 50% (fifty) right, title and interest out of his 10% right, title and interest in the partnership firm 'M/s Kinarivala R.J.K. Industries', and also Rs. 5,000 out of his capital in the said firm. In the trust deed, the expression 'trust fund' is given, inter alia, the following meaning : '(i) 50% of the right, title and interest excluding capital out of the settlor's 10% right, title and interest in the partnership of M/...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Harivallabhdas (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR246(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner by filing this petition has prayed to quash the reference made by the Wealth-tax Officer to the District Valuation Officer. 2. The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family, is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No. 1 is the Wealth-tax Officer and respondent No. 2 is the district Valuation Officer, under the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 2, the Valuation Officer, is responsible for valuing immovable properties at the instance of the Wealth-tax Officer. The petitioner had immovable property of land with a building thereon. The Wealth-tax Officer, somewhere in 1974, took up the assessment of the immovable property of the petitioner for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1973-74 under the Act and referred the matter for valuation of the property to the district Valuation Officer. After following the procedure laid down under the Act, the District Valuation Officer passed an order under section 16A(5...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodchandra C. Patel and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)160; [1995]217ITR232(Guj)
1. The judgment of the court was delivered by G. T. NANAVATI, ACTG. C. J. - In all these petitions, the petitioners applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for waiver or reduction of penalty and interest which had become payable by the petitioner because of late filing of the returns and late payment of tax. As the point which arises for consideration is the same, they are all disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the fact that in all these cases, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the conditions laid down in section 273A having been satisfied, penalties deserved to be waived. But while considering the question of waiver of interest, he held that as the tax due was not paid prior to the making of disclosures, interest did not deserve to be waived, and that type of order was passed in cases from which Special Civil Applications Nos. 5401, 5403, 5404, 5405 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Harivallabhdas (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: (1995)118CTR(Guj)78; [1995]211ITR246(Guj)
B. C. PATEL J. - The petitioner by filing this petition has prayed to quash the reference made by the Wealth-tax Officer to the District Valuation Officer.The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family, is an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No. 1 is the Wealth-tax Officer and respondent No. 2 is the district Valuation Officer, under the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 2, the Valuation Officer, is responsible for valuing immovable properties at the instance of the Wealth-tax Officer. The petitioner had immovable property of land with a building thereon. The Wealth-tax Officer, somewhere in 1974, took up the assessment of the immovable property of the petitioner for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1973-74 under the Act and referred the matter for valuation of the property to the district Valuation Officer. After following the procedure laid down under the Act, the District Valuation Officer passed an order under section 16A(5), f...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai Jivram Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR121(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, Actg. C.J.1. In this petition, under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-assessee is challenging the order dated February 14, 1979, passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the order dated March 15, 1980, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his revisional powers. 2. For the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioner submitted a return on July 31, 1975, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,28,695 and a revised return on November 5, 1976, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,36,989. On assessment, it was found that the total income of the petitioner for the relevant year was Rs. 7,30,140. The said order of assessment dated November 16, 1976, was again rectified under section 154 by an order dated April 13, 1977, and the total income was revised from Rs. 7,30,140 to Rs. 7,21,130. Thereafter, the Income-tax officer issued a notice under section 154 for rectification of the assessment order on the ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR210(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, Actg.C.J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership-firm. It is an assessee for the last many years. The petitioner could not file the income-tax returns for the assessment year 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 in time. For the assessment year 1975-76, though the return was filed within time, the tax which was paid by the assessee was less than what was payable by it. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer levied penalty under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, for the assessment year 1975-76. He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(a) for late filing of the returns for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. For all the four assessment years, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 139(8) read with section 217 of the Act. The petitioner then approached the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A for reduction or waiver of penalty and interest levied by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner passed the following order the party granted the...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Guj)144; [1995]211ITR210(Guj)
G. T. NANAVATI, ACTG. C. J. - The petitioner is a partnership-firm. It is an assessee for the last many years. The petitioner could not file the income-tax returns for the assessment year 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 in time. For the assessment year 1975-76, though the return was filed within time, the tax which was paid by the assessee was less than what was payable by it. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer levied penalty under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, for the assessment year 1975-76. He also levied penalty under section 271(1)(a) for late filing of the returns for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. For all the four assessment years, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 139(8) read with section 217 of the Act. The petitioner then approached the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A for reduction or waiver of penalty and interest levied by the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner passed the following order the party granted t...
Tag this Judgment!Laljibhai Jivram Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and An ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: (1995)120CTR(Guj)161; [1995]211ITR121(Guj)
G. T. NANAVATI, ACTG. C.J. - In this petition, under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-assessee is challenging the order dated February 14, 1979, passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the order dated March 15, 1980, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his revisional powers.For the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioner submitted a return on July 31, 1975, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,28,695 and a revised return on November 5, 1976, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,36,989. On assessment, it was found that the total income of the petitioner for the relevant year was Rs. 7,30,140. The said order of assessment dated November 16, 1976, was again rectified under section 154 by an order dated April 13, 1977, and the total income was revised from Rs. 7,30,140 to Rs. 7,21,130. Thereafter, the Income-tax officer issued a notice under section 154 for rectification of the assessment order on the ground that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanlal S. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Guj)293; [1994]210ITR419(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, by filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, has prayed for a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated August 31, 1979, at annexure 'E', passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, Ahmedabad, upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing payment of interest, vide annexure 'C'. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus asking respondent No. 2, the Income-tax Officer, to grant interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts relevant to decide this petition shortly stated are as under : The petitioner was assessed under the Act for the assessment year 1976-77, the corresponding accounting year being the financial year 1975-76. The petitioner was assessed on the income of Rs. 71,640 by the assessment order dated July 25, 1978, vide annexure 'A' to the petition. As per the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, the total tax payable by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Razakbhai Abdulbhai Ghanchi Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1603
S.D. Shah, J1. These two petitions filed under Article 226 of cretary, Home Department (Special) dated 21st May, 1993 in Spl. Criminal Application No. 1311 of 1993 and dated 30th July, 1993 in Spl. Criminal Application No. 1473 of 1993. The orders are passed by one Mr. J.M. Parmar, Deputy Secretary, Home Department as appellate authority under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the said Act and since an identical question of law is raised in both these petitions by Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In Spl. Criminal Application No. 1311 of 1993, notice dated 15th June, 1992 was issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dholka, to the present petitioner under Section 59 of the said Act, informing the petitioner in writing of the general nature of material allegations against him and giving him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation reg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »