Gujarat Court June 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. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR170(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following two questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,70,000 incurred by the assessee as installation charges for computer machinery was revenue expenditure and as such an allowable deduction 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 8,287 being the amount paid by the assessee to some of its employees was only disallowable under section 40A(5) of the Act out of the total amount of Rs. 14,603 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1970-71. The assessee is a limited company carrying on business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals, medicines, etc. During the year relevant to the assessme...
Bablabhai Vestabhai Gamit Vs. Deputy Collector and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR883
M.S. Parikh, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Vyara and Special Secretary, Revenue Department, respectively on 24th July, 1979 and 13th March, 1980.2. As per Annexure 'A' Notice dated 4th December, 1978 came to be addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the land bearing Survey No. 166/2 and 79 of village Khuntadiya was transferred to the petitioner by Aghriben Dasariya, residing at Paniyari, Taluka Vyara, District Surat in contravention of Section 7 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and therefore he was liable to be evicted from the said land, After hearing the petitioner the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that there was no contiguous land of the petitioner so as to hold that the transaction of Transferring the land in question entered into by the petitioner was saved. The Deputy Collector, Vyara, therefore declared the transac...
Nanubhai Paragji Vs. Chhaganlal Ranchhodji Desai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)2GLR1613
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The judgment and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Valsad on 31st July, 1978 in Special Civil Suit No. Ill of 1978 are under challenge in this First Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for brief). It is needless to say that the suit came to be dismissed by the Court below.2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are not many and not much in dispute. The appellant claimed to be the tenant of the premises comprising of the first 'Gala' from the western side of the house known as 'Ratan Bhavan' bearing City Survey No. 4871-B and situated at Tithal Road, Valsad ('the Suit Premises' for convenience). According to him, defendant No. 2 was his nephew, and was residing with the former from his age of 3 years. It is the case of the appellant herein that in or around 1956 he was transferred from Valsad to Malegaon and thereafter his brothers and other members of his family were residin...
Chandarana Soap Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR624(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it would be correct to hold that the Appellate Assistant commissioner had not only misconceived the facts but had misdirected himself on all material aspects of the case with regard to the amount of Rs. 23,741 disallowed by the Income-tax Officer 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 23,741 claimed by the assessee as defalcated amount was justified ?' 2. During the assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74 corresponding the Samvat year 2028, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 23,741 as business loss on the ground that the said amount was misappropriated by its accountant. According to the assessee, the accountant had collected various amounts from the parties who were liable...
Hemachand Hirachand Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR55(Guj)
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present reference arises from a decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in two appeals involving common points. The relevant assessment year are 1969-70 and 1970-71. The short and pertinent facts are as under : The assessee who claimed to be an agriculturist had entered into a series of transactions of purchase and sale of lands which were treated by the Income-tax Officer as business operations and the profit arising from the sale of such lands was treated as taxable income. 2. The first transaction was in respect of Survey Nos. 368 to 372 within the municipal limits of Navsari, which were purchased between December 10, 1968, and March 25, 1969. They were purchased for Rs. 16,420 and sold for Rs. 38,001 on January 23, 1969. 3. The assessee had further purchased lands bearing Survey Nos. 349/1, 350, 351, 389, 390, 392 and 393 within the municipal limits of Navsari between December 10, 1968, and April 18, 1969. These lands were purchased for Rs. 26,302 and wer...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Guj)68; [1994]206ITR112(Guj)
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The pertinent and relevant facts, in brief, are as under : The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of textile goods. 2. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 45,000 as allowance and expenditure in respect of a shop in Mulji Jetha Market at Bombay, in respect of which the assessee had obtained tenancy rights. The Revenue claimed that the acquisition of tenancy rights is a benefit of an enduring nature and that the expenditure was of a capital nature. This finding was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. 3. Another question raised by the assessee is with regard to an expenditure of Rs. 80,000 incurred by the assessee in making payment to the Textile Commissioner for its failure to export the aforesaid cloth in terms of the bond executed by the assessee. This amount was added back as being in the nature of payment of interest. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the said ...
Syndicate Bank Vs. National Wire Products and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Guj2
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Should the claim of appellant-bank to the property under order of attachment before judgment be accepted or not is the question posed before this Court, in this appeal.2. With a view to appreciating the aforesaid question raised before this Court, a few material facts may be narrated at the outset. The appellant-bank, a third party or a stranger to Special Civil Suit No. 134 of 1979, preferred an application Ex.20, in the trial Court for vacating an order of attachment before judgment passed by the trial Court, contending its claim over the property under attachment. The trial Court partly allowed the claim, holding that the attachment on the machinery exceeding the amount of Rupees 1,50,000/- shall be removed, by modifying the ex parte order granted below Ex. 5 in favour of the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein, in the aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 134 of 1979.3. The original plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-with cost and int...
Samrathben Manilal Chokshi and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR203
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1735 of 1984. The petitioners in the Special Civil Application are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondents in the Special Civil Application are the respondents in this Letters Patent Appeal. Proceedings got prosecuted against the appellants under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Such proceedings have come up to the stage of taking possession of the surplus land, declared under the Act, as per Section 10(5) of the Act. There is no dispute that the appellants have moved the process under Section 21 of the Act desiring not to treat the excess vacant land as excess. The appellants challenged the proceedings under the Act by preferring the Special Civil Application. The primary contention that was placed for consideration before the learned single Judge who dealt with the S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Slm Maneklal Industries Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Guj)397; [1994]205ITR547(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following four questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : At the Revenue's instance : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,107 from the computation of the assessee's total income 2. Whether it was incumbent upon the Income-tax Officer to have made an order under section 201 for recovering the amount of the tax due on the amount paid to the non-resident in order to sustain the addition of Rs. 46,107 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that surtax should be excluded in computing the income of the assessee-company ?' At the assessee's instance : '4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the wall clock in the factory premises ?' 2. The assessee is an indus...
Dinkerrai Kantilal Trivedi Vs. G.P. Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)1GLR402
R.A. Mehta, J.1. Both these petitions arise from refusal to register the sale deeds. The refusal is on the ground that the petitioners, while giving notice to the Government under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, had indicated different names of the intending purchasers. Thereafter the competent authority decided not to exercise the first option to purchase the land on behalf of the' State Government.2. In the first petition, the intimation under Section 26(1) was in the name of Mistry Bhimji Anand and Hansraj Anand whereas in the sale deed, name of a third person, namely, Anand Jiva in addition to other two persons was also mentioned as the purchaser. In the second petition, intimation under Section 26(1) mentioned the name of intending purchaser as Samatbhai Nanjibhai whereas in the sale deed, the name of the purchaser was Ambalal Vajeshanker Joshi. As far as the property and the consideration are concerned, there is no change.3. When these documents ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›