Gujarat Court January 1994 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.
Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 1 Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR1005(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred for the opinion of the High Court the following questions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the assessee's case fell within the provisions of section 5(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of the Rent Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the gross annual letting value was correctly computed at Rs. 18,000 per annum 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that agreed rent of Rs. 500 per month was not standard rent on the ground that the same was nominal rent and whether the said finding is duly supported by material and evidence on record ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The trustees of Shri Bipin...
Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Guj)269; [1994]207ITR175(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred of the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions : '1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner to the effect that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as the same was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order as to bifurcating expenses against different types of incomes and in recomputing the amount of profits and gains attributable to the activities specified in section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer can be said to have been erroneous in so far as the same is said to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?' 2. The relevant assessment years ar...
Consumer Education and Research Centre and ors. Vs. Gujarat Electricit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR1356
A.P. Ravani, J.1. When the petition is called out on January 17, 1994 learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners requested for time. It was stated that the petitioners were desirous to engage a Senior Counsel. It was further stated that the Senior Counsel who was to be engaged was present in Court. After consulting the Senior Counsel the request for next date of hearing was made in presence of the learned Advocate and the Senior Counsel who was to be engaged. The next date, i.e., January 21, 1994 was fixed as per the convenience of the learned Advocates. It was expressly made clear to the learned Advocates that the petition shall proceed further in accordance with law on the next date. Still, however, today when the petition is called out neither the Advocate on record nor any Senior Advocate is present on behalf of the petitioners. The Court has waited for sufficiently long time. The Advocates appearing for the respondents are present. No one on behalf of the petitioners is present...
Alkapuri Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Surtax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR903(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred for the opinion of this Court the following questions under s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, r/w s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 91,513 for asst. yr. 1969-70 and Rs. 1,46,775 for asst. yr. 1970-71 in the reserve for bad and doubtful debts was not includible in capital computation for the purpose of computing the capital base while determining the surtax liability of the assessee ?' 2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that sum of Rs. 14,24,627 was correctly treated as 'provision' and not 'reserve' capacity when the same was admittedly excess provision for other expenses ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee had shown the reserve ...
Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Suhrid Geigy Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR448(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred for the opinion of this Court the following question under s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 r/w s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gratuity reserve amount of Rs. 1,47,327 for asst. yr. 1965-66 and Rs. 1,93,802 for asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1968-69 was includible in computation of capital employed for the purpose of the surtax under r. 1 of the Second Schedule of the Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The relevant assessment years are 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1968-69. The assessee, a limited company, carried on business of manufacture of medicines. In respect of the amounts shown in gratuity reserve account for the respective years, the Surtax Officer in the course of assessment proceedings held that the amount standing to the credit of gratuity reserve account did not represent re...
Vinabhai Bhimjibhai Sutaria Vs. Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ1061
Y.B. Bhatt, J.1. The present appellant is the original applicant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 70 of 1979 and has challenged the judgment and order passed therein by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, dated 25.1.1980. The Tribunal has dismissed the entire claim of the appellant on the ground that he was solely and entirely responsible for the accident and no proportion of blame could have been laid at the feet of the opponents.2. Certain facts are not in dispute or are indisputable. The applicant-appellant was driving a Rajdoot motor cycle and was travelling from Rajashthali to Khodiyar Temple on 10.1.1979 when at about 3.45 p.m. the accident took place. This accident took place at the junction of the Palitana-Songadh Road along which the applicant-appellant was travelling which is a smaller road, and the main Bhavnagar-Rajkot Highway along which the ST bus was travelling. The appellant sought to make out a case that it was the driver of the bus who was rash and neg...
Mahmad Hanif Shaikh Ibrahim Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1191
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. 'Whether the report of the Public Analyst containing bare opinion, without there being any full and complete data disclosing the tests or experiments performed by him, can be attached any probative evidentiary value to be used against the accused for recording the order of conviction and sentence against him?' This in short is the question that arises for consideration in the context and back-drop of the following facts-situation.2. The prosecution case, as per the evidence of the P.S.I.-Jawansinh P. Barad (P.W.-3, Exh.-9) is that when on 6-1-1988 at about 19-45 hours, he was on duty at Sagrampura Police Station, Surat, he received an information that one person was selling 'Charas' in a bye-lane known as 'Dhabuwali Gali'. Acting on this tip-off, he immediately requisitioned the services of two panch witnesses, viz., Prasanna Shankarrao Shinde (P.W.-1, Exh.-6) and Mukesh Bholanath Trivedi (examined by the accused as the defence witness) and in company of other two Pol...
Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Atul Products Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Guj)448; [1994]208ITR515(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following questions for our opinion under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax Act'), read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Income-tax Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that dividend of Rs. 52,17,625 and not the balance after sections 80K and 80M deductions, i.e., Rs. 20,79,050, should be excluded while computing chargeable profits under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the proportionate capital is to be reduced only in respect of income not includible as pe...
G.C. Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1022
M.S. Parikh, J.1. Inter-se seniority in the cadre of Inspectors, Motor Vehicles, based on passing of departmental examination came precisely to be canvassed by the petitioner-appellant herein by challenging seniority lists dated 18-12-1986 and 6-2-1988 in Special Civil Application No. 6163 of 1991 and now in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 26-12-1991 rendered by the learned single Judge in the said Special Civil Application.2. According to the petitioner he joined services in May, 1972 as Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles as a direct recruit. He stood promoted to the post of Inspector in April, 1980. Upon completion of 3 years of his service he became eligible to appear in the departmental examination in the month of April, 1983 and he in fact appeared in January, 1984 and passed the said examination at first attempt within specified chances and within specified period. According to him, some respondents had not cleared the examination within the specified per...
Ambica Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Surtax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Guj)466; [1994]206ITR699(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred for the opinion of the High Court, the following questions under the provisions of section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the rectification order under section 13 passed by the Surtax Officer was valid 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I.) for a sum of Rs. 9,23,283 in lieu of surcharge on income-tax was not deductible for computing the chargeable profits under the Surtax Act ?' 2. The assessee company was assessed under the provisions of the Act for the assessment year 1977-78 and chargeable profits were computed after gi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »