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.
Pachhat Varga Shramjivi Samudaik Sahakari Khedut Co-op. Society Ltd. a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR731
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners seek cancellation of the order made by the State Government on 20th October, 1986 at Annexure 'E' to the petition, made under Section 305 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which the order of Collector, Banaskantha passed on 10-5-1986 resuming the disputed grazing land admeasuring 300 Acres from Survey No. 413 of village Khardosan for the purpose of allotting it as resolved by the Panchayat.2. Admittedly, Survey No. 413 admeasuring about 540 Acres of village Khardosan was a gaucher land which vested in the Panchayat under the provisions of Section 96(1) of the Act. There was a demand of the said land by the petitioners since 1979 for agricultural purposes. It appears that the respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat rejected that proposal by its resolution dated 29th February, 1984. The petitioners pursued the matter pointing out that they were landless labourers belonging to a down-trodden class. It appears that ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Megaw Ravindra Laboratories (i) P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR247(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 63,304 forming part of the gratuity provision which was not considered as allowable deduction while computing the total income would qualify for inclusion in the capital base? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 75,000 should be considered as a reserve liable to be included in the computation of capital base ?' 2. The aforesaid questions arise with regard to the assessment year 1975-76 for surtax liability of the assessee which is a limited company. Apart from other deductions, the assessee contended that in the computation of capital, an amount of Rs. 65,304 forming part of the gratuity provision ought not to have been deducted as it was not considered as allowable deduction while computing the total income. The assessee-company also contended that the re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Guj)251; [1995]212ITR453(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the admissible amount would be the amount not exceeding 8-1/3 per cent. of the salary of the employees for each year of service including the current year and the previous year (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal rightly reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. This reference arises out of the order passed on October 25, 1980, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal directing the Commissioner of Income-tax to work out on the basis of actuarial valuation the amount of gratuity for deduction as per Explanation 1 to section 40A(7)(b). The aforesaid Explanation 1 reads as under : ...
Rasiklal Chimanlal Nagri and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR764a
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The present revision application is filed by the original plaintiffs against Union of India through the Post Master, General Post Office, Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad, for the recovery of Rs. 1,870.50 being the amount of education cess plus the interest of Rs. 290.50 at the rate of 9% per annum. The aforesaid amount was claimed by the plaintiffs as the opponent Union of India showed its unwillingness and disowned its liability to pay full amount of education cess for the financial year April 1973 to March 1974 which comes to Rs. 1870.50.2. For the recovery of the said amount, the Regular Civil Suit No. 2834 of 1975 was filed in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad on July 31, 1975.3. The Union of India resisted the suit by its Writtent Statement at Exh. 11 and inter alia contended that though it has agreed by Exh. 27, registered Rent note dated 2-10-1968, to pay all Municipal taxes and other taxes, it is under no obligation to pay more than an amount equal to half the amou...
Khimji Visram and Sons (Gujarat) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR993(Guj)
ORDERM.B. Shah, J. 1. The points debated at the time of hearing of this matter are confined to the interpretation of section 30, 32 and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was contended that, once the claim for deduction by the assessee is not covered by the specific provisions under section 30 or 32, then he is not entitled to get deduction under section 37, even though the case of the assessee squarely falls within the ambit of section 37. It was also hotly debated, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether or not the assessee has used the premises for business purpose. 2. These questions arise in the background of the facts that the assessee-company carries on business in cotton on a wholesale basis and it submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1976-77. It claimed deduction of expenses and depreciation in respect of the registered office situated at Sagar Mahal, Ahmedabad. It also claimed deduction of expenses un...
Jivanbhai Jerambhai Patadia Vs. Bhavanjee Vinasjee Thakkar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1995Guj92
ORDERK.R. Vyas, J.1. In rarest of rare cases the Court passes the order restoring the possession to the tenant at the interlocutory stage. This is one of such cases where the Courts below have done so, and in my view rightly so.2. The respondent-plaintiff in his suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 150 of 1992 has averred that he is the tenant of the petitioner-defendant in a shop situated in Rajkot since last 18 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and he is carrying on his business in the rented shop in the name and style of Jay Jalaram Sweet Mart. It is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner does, not give rent receipt. The respondent was required to go to Talod town to see the health of his brother's wife where he stayed for abouts to 4 months and in his absence his wife and son were carrying on the business in the rented shop. Owing to the sickness of his wife the suit shop was not opened for some time and remained closed. On 23-7-1992 the petitioner illegally broke o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›