Gujarat Court November 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.
Bhogilal M. Vaishnav, President, Gurukrupa Co-op. Housing Society Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1555
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on 12th April, 1990 in Review Application No. TEN.C.K. 1 of 1990, by which the Tribunal set aside the earlier order passed by Ex-member of the Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN.A.K. 6 of 1987 dated 30th August, 1990 and quashed the orders of the Collector and Deputy Collector dated 30th June, 1987 and 2nd May, 1986 respectively, declaring that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to get 1 Acre 32 Gunthas of land in respect of which he had been shown as an encroacher and for which he had put up claim against the Government.2. It appears that the respondent No. 2 made an application on 19-11-1982 claiming that the portion of 1 Acre and 32 Gunthas of land in respect of which he was shown as an encroacher, in fact, belonged to him being part of the Survey No. 982 and shown as part of the Government land bearing Survey No. 984, Though, initially, the respondent No. 2 claimed that the land wa...
Shri Ranpur Khoda Dhor Panjarapole Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR597
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Deputy Collector at Dholka (the first authority for convenience) on 19th November 1991 in Ceiling (Section 3) Case No. 15 of 1978 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat at Gandhinagar (the appellate authority for convenience) is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the first authority rejected the petitioner's application under Section 3(1-A) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 (the Act for beief).2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 under No. E-619. It owns certain parcels of land in villages Ranpur, Kinara and Bhodia, taluka Dhandhuka, district Ahmedabad (Rural) in all admeasuring 195 acres 14 gunthas. The lands held by the petitioners were granted exemption unde...
Dilawar Gulabbhai Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1414
Shah, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has by this petition questioned the legality and validity of order of detention dated 13-5-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 3(2) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. Along with the order of detention grounds of detention duly formulated under Section 9(1) of the said Act are supplied to the detenu.2. From the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu it becomes clear that the detenu is detained as 'bootlegger' within the meaning of term as defined by Section 2(b) of the said Act, and as he is involved in as many as four cases which are said to have been registered at Kagdapith Police Station and Gaekwad Police Station. Three out of said four cases are pending investigation while one is pending trial in the Court. Over and above involvement of the detenu in the aforesaid cases the detaining authority has placed reliance upon the statements of witnesses who ...
Peass Industrial Engineers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR348(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, it was the contention of the assessee, Peass Industrial Engineers Private Limited, Navsari, that Mr. Guzek was not in the service of the assessee, but he was deputed by its collaborator, Messrs. Mettler's Sons Limited, Switzerland, on the basis of an agreement for supply of 'know-how' dated June 3, 1965, and on the basis of further agreement of the same date for technical services. The authorities below, i.e., the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, rejected the said contention of the assessee. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee preferred a reference application and on the basis of the said reference, the following questions are referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : For the assessment year 1968-69 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR735(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' ('the Tribunal', for short) has referred the following five questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 7,005 paid by the company as interest on instalments of the incremental contribution to the Municipal Corporation is an allowable deduction in computing the taxable profits of the assessee-company ?' 2 to 16 * * * * * * * * *17. Before answering question No. 1 referred to us, it would be necessary to recapitulate certain facts. 18. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer an allowance of Rs. 72,014 representing payment of betterment charge and interest to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The assessee had brought to the notice of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax the fact that th...
Saurashtra Majoor Mahajan Sang Vs. Una Taluka Khedut Sahakari Khand Ud ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: (1995)1GLR580
Ravani, J. 1. Can the Industrial Court reappreciate and reweigh the evidence in exercise of its revisional power under Section 85 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Can it prefer another view simply because it is more preferable or plausible In short the question to be determined in these petitions is, what is the scope of the revisional powers of the Industrial Court under Section 85 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 2. These petitions arise out of a common order dated January 15, 1988 passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in revision Application Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1987. By this order the Industrial Court reversed and set aside the interim order passed by the Labour Court by which the Labour Court held that the management may take action of closure or retrenchment of the workmen or putting the workmen on lay off only after following the procedure of law and particularly the provisions of Secs. 25M, 25N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the...
Peass Industrial Engineers Private Limited. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1993
Reported in: [1995]211ITR348(Guj)
M. B. SHAH J. - For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, it was the contention of the assessee, Peass Industrial Engineers Private Limited, Navsari, that Mr. Guzek was not in the service of the assessee, but he was deputed by its collaborator, Messrs. Mettlers Sons Limited, Switzerland, on the basis of an agreement for supply of 'know-how' dated June 3, 1965, and on the basis of further agreement of the same date for technical services. The authorities below, i.e., the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, rejected the said contention of the assessee. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee preferred a reference application and on the basis of the said reference, the following questions are referred by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion :For the assessment year 1968-69 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in hol...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Barkate Saifiyah Society
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1993
Reported in: [1995]213ITR492(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. For the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer arrived at the conclusion that the assessee, Shri Bharkate Saifiyash Society, Rajkot, was not entitled to get the benefit under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as it was hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act. For this purpose, he has referred to the objects of the trust which are as under : (i) To help the poor and needy. (ii) Medical relief. (iii) Provision for education. (iv) To carry out the religious activities. 2. He observed that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) are not applicable in the cases of charitable and religious trusts. However, he held that the trustees have not carried out any religious activities and it was not provided in the trust deed that a specified portion of the income or corpus would be spent on any of the objects. The trustees are carrying on activities of charitable nature only and simply by labelling the trust to be charitable and reli...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak JaIn Ma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Guj)144; [1995]211ITR293(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' ('the Tribunal', for short), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the carry forward of the expenses for set off in the subsequent year ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee, i.e., Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, Rajkot, is a registered public trust. The assessee filed a return of income on October 16, 1974, declaring nil income. Again a revised return was filed on September 30, 1975, declaring a deficit of Rs. 2,916. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed set off regarding carry forward of the expenses. The Income-tax Officer, without assigning any reasons, disallowed the said claim of set off. The a...
Hindustan Fashions Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR279(Guj)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, Actg. C.J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged issuance of notices dated March 30, 1982, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 should not be reopened. 2. The assessee manufactures textile garments for export. In respect of the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee showed on the credit side an amount of Rs. 37,79,985 under the head 'Incentives and drawback'. It consisted of drawback of Rs. 4,01,572 and actual cash incentives of Rs. 33,77,473. The Income-tax Officer adopted the method of considering the incentives and drawback, on accrual basis, in view of the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee and in view of the previous assessments made on that basis, and assessed the export benefit at Rs. 30,10,289. The taxable income of the assessee was then computed and the assessment order was passed on July 17, 1981. For the asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »