Gujarat Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheth Sorabji Nasarwanji Parekh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: [1995]211ITR633(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The assessee-Sheth Sorabji Nasarwanji Parekh, is a registered trust and had claimed exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of its income for the assessment year 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee. In appeal, the Appellate Commissioner reversed the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption as claimed. The Tribunal relying upon its previous decision also held that the assessee was entitled to exemption as claimed by it. Hence, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessee is entitled to exemption under sub-section (22) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. At the time of hearing of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Milling Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: [1995]211ITR690(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J.1. The assessee, the Milling Trading Company Private Limited, has income from business and from other sources which included inter-corporate dividend. It maintained two sets of accounts, one for the milling trading and the other for the new industrial undertaking 'Kanisha Steels'. For the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer worked out the total income of the assessee-company at Rs. 13,71,849 which included dividend income of Rs. 1,70,964. He gave relief under section 80M for Rs. 1,02,578 against the aforesaid income. In the business of Kanisha Steels, there was a loss of Rs. 10,92,222. However, since there were unabsorbed depreciation and unadjusted development rebate of earlier years which were more than profits worked out at Rs. 1,79,000, adjustments were given to the extent permissible. The assessee was also having carried forward losses of Rs. 6,65,000. 2. After examining the income-tax records for the assessment year 1976-77, the Commissioner of Income-tax...
National Consumer's Protection Samiti and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1043
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions on the respondent No. 2-Corporation to discharge its obligatory duties under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to provide all essential services to the residents of Krishnanagar Housing Colony.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Public Charitable Trust, whose main objects are said to be of carrying on activities for the benefit of consumers. The petitioner No. 2 is a resident of the Krishnanagar Housing Colony. It is situate at Saijpur Bogha, Naroda, which area has been included in the city of Ahmedabad since February 1986. At the hearing of this petition, it was not disputed that the area of the said residential colony has been included within the city of Ahmedabad. It appears that the Krishnanagar Housing Colony was constructed under the Low Income Group Scheme by the respondent No. 3 - the Gujarat Housing Board and there are ...
M.L. Family Trust and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: [1995]213ITR152(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. Six complaints, vide Criminal Cases Nos. 919 of 1988 to 924 of 1988, were filed by the Income-tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against the present petitioners for the alleged breach committed by the accused which is made punishable under section 276B read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Criminal Complaints Nos. 919, 920 and 921 of 1988 are filed as the accused failed to deduct the tax within time from the interest amount which has been credited to the account of different payees referred to in the complaints and it is alleged that an offence punishable under section 276B, read with section 278B of the said Act, has been committed. Criminal Complaints Nos. 922, 923 and 924 of 1988 are filed, inter alia, alleging that the accused have failed to pay the tax within time after deducting it on June 30, 1985, from the interest amount mentioned in the complaints, credited on June 30, 1985, to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shahibag Entrepreneurs Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: [1995]215ITR810(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1 to 12 ... 13. So far as the claim regarding foreign tour expenses incurred by the assessee-company for Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai is concerned, Mr. B. J. Shelat, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the visit by Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai was necessary in order to facilitate negotiations at top levels with foreign corporations and the fact that the Reserve Bank authorities had sanctioned the necessary foreign exchange, would not indicate that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company on the foreign tour of Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai was wholly and exclusively for business purposes and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing the said claim. 14. Mr. D. A. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the visit of Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai was necessary in order to facilitate negotiations at top levels with foreign corporations and the fact that the Reserve Bank authorities on...
Raghavbhai Arjanbhai Through His Power of Attorney Vasantrai Pragjibha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1117
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Petitioners were occupying shops Nos. 15 and 16 belonging to respondent No. 1 - Amreli Municipality. They were put in possession of the shops pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 22 and 23 dated July, 22/23, 1992 passed by respondent No. 1 - Amreli Municipality. Respondent No. 2 Collector, Amreli, has cancelled the resolution by order dated December, 18/21, 1992 in case No. 17 of 1992. It has also been directed that possession of the shops be taken over from the petitioners and the amount paid by them be refunded to them. As per the order, possession of the shops has been taken over on December 24, 1992. Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of this order by filing this petition on December 28, 1993. Learned single Judge of this Court initially ordered to issue notice and directed respondents to maintain status quo as it existed on the date of filing of the petition. Later on petitioners prayed for amendment in the petition and challenged the constitutional va...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepak Family Trust No. 1 and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR358(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in these reference is whether in a case where the assessee is a discretionary trust, it is entitled to deductions under section 80L of the Act. In all these cases the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim made under section 80L on the ground that the said section was available only to individuals and/or Hindu undivided families as they are the only assessees contemplated by that section for the purpose of the benefit conferred by it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the trust should be treated as an individual and, thus, it would be entitled to the reliefs under section 80L. The Tribunal held that section 161 and not section 164 is the basis for assessment of the representative assessee and as the trustee is only victoriously liable as a representative assessee and as the tax has to be levied upon and recovered from him in the like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable fro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepak Family Trust No. 1 and Others.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: (1995)119CTR(Guj)150; [1995]211ITR575(Guj)
G. T. NANAVATI J. - The question which arises for consideration in these reference is whether in a case where the assessee is a discretionary trust, it is entitled to deductions under section 80L of the Act. In all these cases the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim made under section 80L on the ground that the said section was available only to individuals and/or Hindu undivided families as they are the only assessees contemplated by that section for the purpose of the benefit conferred by it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the trust should be treated as an individual and, thus, it would be entitled to the reliefs under section 80L. The Tribunal held that section 161 and not section 164 is the basis for assessment of the representative assessee and as the trustee is only victoriously liable as a representative assessee and as the tax has to be levied upon and recovered from him in the like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable fro...
Desaibhai Shanabhai Patel and anr. Vs. Bhulabhai Prabhudas Patel and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1647
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Thasara ('the First Authority' for convenience) on 17th April, 1982 in Tenancy Case No. 28 of 1980 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Deputy Collector at Anand ('the Appellate Authority' for convenience) on 30th October, 1982 in Tenancy Appeal No. 108 of 1982 as further affirmed in revision by the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 4th July, 1985 in Revision Application No. TEN.B.A. 2012 of 1982 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order the First Authority declared respondent No. 1 herein to be the tenant of one parcel of land bearing Block No. 37 (Survey No. 43) admeasuring 1 acre 29 gunthas situated in village Mithana Muvada, Taluka Thasara, District Kheda ('the disputed land' for convenience) prior to 1st April, 1957.2. This litigation has a somewhat cheque...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prashant J. Kinariwala
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: [1995]217ITR393(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 266(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 26,405 being 40 per cent. of income by way of share in the firm of Messrs. Ramniklal J. Kinariwala and Co., was not includible in the total income of the assessee?' 2. The reference arises in the background of the following facts : The assessee is assessed in the status of 'individual'. He was a partner in a firm of Messrs. Ramniklal J. Kinariwala and Co., under a deed of partnership dated January 24, 1972. He had a share of 15 per cent. in the profits of the firm and a share of 19 per cent. in the losses. The accounts of the partnership firm were closed on December 31, 1972. In the meantime, by a deed of settlement dated December 22, 1972, the assessee created a trust known as 'Prashant Jivanlal Trust' for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »