Gujarat Court March 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. J.L. Trivedi and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR112(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. This application is filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, as the Tribunal rejected the application made under section 256(1) for referring the question which, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax, arose out of the Tribunal's order. 2. J. L. Trivedi and Sons is the assessee. It is a registered firm. It came into existence in or about 1970-71. It consisted of three partners, viz., Jashwantlal Kantilal Trivedi, Shantaben Jayantilal Trivedi and Naisedh Jayantilal Trivedi. The share of Shantaben, the mother was 45 per cent., Naisedh had 50 per cent. share and the share of Jashwantlal was 5 per cent. and he was admittedly an outsider in the sense that he did not belong to the family of Jayantilal Trivedi. The affairs of the firm were controlled and managed by Shantaben and Naisedh and Jashwantlal was working under their control and guidance. In the year 1971-72, Pallavika, daughter of Shantaben, eloped with Chandrakant...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. L. Trivedi and Sons.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Guj)535
G. T. NANAVATI J. :This application is filed by the CIT under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, as the Tribunal rejected the application made under s. 256(1) for referring the question which, according to the CIT, arose out of the Tribunals order.2. J. L. Trivedi & Sons is the assessee. It is a registered firm. It came into existence in or about 1970-71. It consisted of three parties, viz., Jashwantlal Kantilal Trivedi, Shantaben Jayantilal Trivedi and Naisedh Jayantilal Trivedi. The share of Shantaben, the mother was 45%, Naisedh had 50% share and the share of Jashwantlal was 5% and was admittedly an outsider in the sense that he did not belong to the family of Jayantilal Trivedi. The affairs of the firm were controlled and managed by Shantaben and Naisedh and Jashwantlal was working under their control and guidance. In the year 1971-72, Pallavika, daughter of Shantaben eloped with Chandrakant Shankerlal Rana and could be traced and brought back to the family with great efforts and pain. She w...
R.K. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ232Guj
D.G. Karia, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the appointment order dated May 27, 1980 at Annexure 'A' to the petition appointing respondent No. 3, Shri Devendra kumar Mavjibhai Makwana, as Assistant Regional Transport Officer on probation for a period of two years from the date of his taking over charge in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Ahmedabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner, though duly qualified and selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, respondent No. 4 herein, has not been appointed by the respondent No. 1, The petitioner was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (for short 'ARID') in August 1978, The said select-list was to be valid for a period of two years and as such the select-list was to expire on August 27, 1980 as per the Government Circular dated April 4, 1979. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected along with two other candidates, namely,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Co. L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR40(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. In this reference, made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with two assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68. As there were two separate appeals before the Tribunal and two separate applications were made to it, the Tribunal ought to have made two separate references. Since it has failed to do so, we direct the office to register two separate reference treating as : (1) Income-tax 1966-67, and (2) Income-tax Reference No. 535A of 1980 as a reference in respect of the assessment year 1967-68. 2. As the questions which are referred are identical, both these references are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The questions which have been referred to this court are as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that by reason of the omission or failure, if any, on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material fa...
State of Gujarat Vs. Dinesh Chandra Harjibhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1393; (1993)2GLR1108
ORDERK.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether any accused hopefully expecting that he would be let-off with the lighter sentence, and accordingly in the process while pleading guilty, he also cleverly puts forward some more facts and circumstances either by way of explaining away, or justifying the alleged wrong committed by him in order to further influence the mental process of the learned Magistrate while awarding the sentence, then whether such composite plea of guilt and innocence could be said to be a 'plea of guilty' at all? And if not, then whether by accepting such mixed-up pleas of guilt and innocence, blowing hot and cold, the trial court can be permitted to short-circuit the trial by straightway jumping to pass the order of conviction and sentence in utter disregard to the prosecution?' These two are the material questions surfacing discussion in this matter calling for determination from this Court.2. Few relevant facts - According to Mr. K.P. Nathwani, Factory Inspector, Rajkot, when h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Baroda Rayon Corporation.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Guj)205; [1994]208ITR454(Guj)
G. T. NANAVATI J. The following three questions are referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, were bad in law and that hence while computing the capital employed for the purpose of section 80J, the said provisions had to be ignored ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deficiency in question had to be determined on the basis of computation of capital employed in accordance with rule 19A and not rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules ?(3) If the assessee has previous year of 15 months, whether the amount of capital employed during the previous year should be computed at the rate of six per cent. per annum as provided under section 80J for period of 12 months or 15 months ?'Questi...
Navnitlal Sakarlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR194(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that as the bonus shares in question were acquired after January 1, 1954, the assessee could not be allowed the option of substitution of the market value as on January 1, 1954, in regard to the bonus shares 2. Whether the amount of Rs. 26,221 being 1/3rd of the sum of Rs. 78,663 paid to the Life Insurance Corporation of India by Sarangpur Mills for purchase of deferred annuity policy is includible in the hands of the assessee as income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' 3. Whether, on the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 26,221 utilised by Sarangpur Mills towards purchase of single premium...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.R. Kothari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR275(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 52(2) could be invoked in the absence of proof of avoidance or reduction of the assessee's tax liabilities under section 45 of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, portion of the transaction attracting the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act constituted a 'transfer under gift' within the provisions of section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee had transferred 50 shares in a company during the financial year 1971-72 in favour of his two sons at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per share. The fair market value of the said shares on the date of the transfer was assessed by the assessee at Rs. 1,941 per share. The price difference in respect of those shares was returned by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Trading Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR216(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following seven questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that against the interest payment of Rs. 4,91,749 returned by the assessee, the claim of the assessee for exclusion of interest of Rs. 57,264 paid by the assessee because of late payments of hundi loans and because of late payments of amounts for the goods purchased by the assessee was justified? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax directing the Income-tax Officer to enhance the assessment adding the amount of excess interest of Rs. 53,491? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to enhance the assessment on a proportionate basis after allowing deduction of interest paid by the assessee on hundi loans and on account of late payments made of t...
Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR314(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court at the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to vacancy allowance in respect of property that was neither struck with sterility nor was at any time in the past let out and was always vacant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to get the vacancy allowance or exclusion for occupancy for business purposes for the properties wherein machines were lying (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of municipal taxes in respect of properties which were not let ?' 2. For the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1971-72 and 1972-73 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »