Gujarat Court October 1993 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.
Sukhdev Rathi Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR157(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, Actg.C.J. 1. The petitioner is a businessman and also a taxpayer. In the course of assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain five deposits of Rs. 20,000 each and also to show cause why for contravention of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, penalty should not be imposed upon him. The Assessing Officer held that the said deposits were genuine, but the explanation that the said deposits were accepted because cash funds were urgently required for the petitioner's business, was not accepted by him and, therefore, by an order dated January 28, 1993, he levied penalty of Rs. 1,14,113. 2. A contention was raised before the Assessing Officer that section 269SS has been held ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution by the Madras High Court and, therefore, no penalty could be levied under that provision. That contention was rejected on the ground that against t...
Sukhdev Rathi Vs. Union of India and Another.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1993
Reported in: (1995)116CTR(Guj)620; [1995]211ITR157(Guj)
G. T. NANAVATI, ACTG. C. J. - The petitioner is a businessman and also a taxpayer. In the course of assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain five deposits of Rs. 20,000 each and also to show cause why for contravention of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, penalty should not be imposed upon him. The Assessing Officer held that the said deposits were genuine, but the explanation that the said deposits were accepted because cash funds were urgently required for the petitioners business, was not accepted by him and, therefore, by an order dated January 28, 1993, he levied penalty of Rs. 1,14,113.A contention was raised before the Assessing Officer that section 269SS has been held ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution by the Madras High Court and, therefore, no penalty could be levied under that provision. That contention was rejected on the ground that against the ...
Haji Abdulla Haji Ibrahim Mandhra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR389
G.T. Nanavati, Acting C.J.1. The petitioner's representation dated 5-3-1992 made to Mahendra Prashad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, was not considered by him but was considered and rejected by the Central Government. According to the petitioner, Mahendra Prashad, being the detaining authority his representation ought to have been considered by Mahendra Prashad as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act and as that has not been done, his continued detention has become illegal. This is one of the points raised by the petitioner in his petition challenging his detention.2. The petition was placed for final hearing before a Division Bench. While considering the abovestated point, the Division Bench found that 'there are contrary observations made by the Supreme Court'. In the order passed by it for reference to a Larger Bench. It has referred to the decision ...
Rohit Vasavada Vs. R.K. Shah, Public Prosecutor and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1993
Reported in: (1996)2GLR758
M.S. Parikh, J.1. The Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short 'G.I.I.C.') is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for various objects, all of which are commercial in nature, as described in Clause (3) of the Memorandum of Association, which has been read before this Court. G.I.I.C. was formed with an object to provide assistance for the development of industries in the State of Gujarat and to render financial assistance to various entrepreneurs. It also participates in certain joint ventures by holding equity capital with others.2.The petitioner is a President of G.I.I.C. Officers' Union and also the President of G.I.I.C. Employees' Union. One Mr. Madhusudan Dayal at the relevant of time was Managing Director of the G.I.I.C. and one Dr. B.P. Gupta was the General Manager at the relevant point of time. It appears that the petitioner had an occasion to issue various pamphlets in the year. 1987 making wild allega...
Shahibag Entrepreneurs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Guj)101; [1994]210ITR998(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, Shahibag Entrepreneurs Private Limited, Ahmedabad, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the foreign tour expenses to the turn of Rs. 1,61,827 were not allowable as revenue expenses? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the weighted deduction under 35B was not allowable in respect of items totalling up to Rs. 1,21,000?' 2. The aforesaid questions of law arise in the background of the following facts : In the return of income for the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed deduction of various expenses including the deduction of expenses incurred for foreign tours undertaken by the director and the employees of the assessee-company for the purpose of establishing joint venture units in countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Mauritius, Nigeria, Nairobi, Kenya, etc. The Income-tax Of...
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Guj)82
M.B. Shah, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of and dealing in galvanised pipes. For the assessment year 1975-76, it claimed certain deductions. The disputed deduction are as under : (a) The company claimed deduction of Rs. 21,85,104 being the amount of the company's liability for surtax for the assessment year. (b) The company had reimbursed to its two managing directors, Shri Shantilal Mangaldas and Apporva Shantilal, medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,695 and Rs. 4,311. (c) It paid Rs. 5,00,500 to the Gujarat Steel Tubes Employees' Welfare Fund. (d) The company claimed allowance in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 24,125 incurred for the issue of bonus shares as revenue expenditure. (e) It also claimed deduction for Rs. 90,000 under section 37 as it paid the premium of Rs. 45,000 on the lives of each of the two directors for purchase of deferred annuity. 2. Out of the aforesaid claims, certain claims made by the company were no...
Solanki Laxmansing Kesarising Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1294
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. When an acquittal would operate as an absolute bar to the departmental proceedings? Whether departmental inquiry could be barred on further evidence, which did not have before the Criminal Court, though the prosecution had such an opportunity to lead such evidence, at that time? These are some of the important questions which have come up for adjudication in this appeal. A few material relevant facts giving birth to the present appeal, may firstly be, shortly, enumerated to appreciate the main questions in focus.2. The appellant is the unsuccessful, original plaintiff, who initiated legal proceedings against the respondents-employer, original defendants, by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 1975.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for setting aside the order of dismissal and for reinstatement in service with full pay. He came to be dismissed from the service by virtue of an order passed by the District Superintendent of Police, at Mehsana, on 30-4-1973. The plaintiffs con...
Sushilaben Dhulubhai Solanki Vs. Ramakant Dehyubhai Parmar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1993
Reported in: II(1994)DMC288; (1994)2GLR1260
S.M. Soni, J.1. Rule. Mr. Supheia, learned Advocate, waives service of rule for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned A.P.P., waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.2. Real maternal aunt of minor Tarlika (minor for short) has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus against respondent No. 1, father of minor, and produce her before the Court, ascertain her wish as to with whom she is willing to reside i.e. with maternal aunt or with the petitioner, and on ascertaining her wish, necessary orders be passed.3. It is necessary to refer to certain facts, which, in our opinion, are most relevant and material for the purpose of deciding this petition. Minor is the first child, aged about 16 years, of respondent No. 1. When minor was aged about four years, her mother had died. Minor had another younger sister named Priti. In view of the tender age of both the daughters, it appeared that the respondent No. 1 arrive...
Life Bond Fabric Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1993
Reported in: [1995]216ITR529(Guj)
J.M. Panchal J.1. At the instance of the assessee, i.e., Life Bond Fabric Pvt. Ltd., the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' ('the Tribunal', for short), has made the present reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), to this court, as the Tribunal agreed that two questions of law arise for the opinion of this court out of the order dated June 17, 1980, passed by it in I.T.A. No. 503/(Ahd.) of 1979. 2. Facts : This reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. On the completion of regular assessment, the Income-tax Officer charged interest amounting to Rs. 648 under section 139(8) of the Act for the delay on the part of the assessee in furnishing the return of total income. While calculating the interest payable under section 139(8) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer took into account payments of amounts which were described as advance tax and allowed credit for the amounts of Rs. 750, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 24,989, respectively, p...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohanbhai Ravjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1993
Reported in: I(1995)ACC642; 1994ACJ970; (1993)2GLR639; (1994)1GLR681
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company (original opponent No. 3) challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar, dated 11th October, 1982, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 224 of 1981.2. The first respondent herein is the original claimant, respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle in question and the respondent No. 3 is the person who was actually driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident.3. The facts leading to the claim petition, which are not disputed or which constitute a common ground as between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle in question, can be stated, in brief, as under:3.1. The vehicle in question is a tanker bearing registration No. GTX 5332 owned by the second respondent firm. At the relevant point of time it was being driven by the present respondent No. 3 who was regularly employed as the driver of the vehicle. The claimant was travelling in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »