Gujarat Court February 1994 Judgments
J.J. Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR925(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated October 12, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, dismissing three revision petitions filed by the petitioner-assessee against the assessment orders for the assessment year 1985-86 to 1987-88, and rejecting the petitioner's claim for additional depreciation and investment allowance on the cash subsidy portion of the cost of acquisition of the assets and confirming levy of interest under sections 215/217 and 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and declining to declining to decide the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits. 2. For the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the petitioner had filed returns of income disclosing income at Rs. 26,98,650 and Rs. 13,80,979, respectively. The original assessment orders for these two years were passed on February 17, 1986, and May 21, 1986, respectively, computing the petitioner's income at Rs. 27,06,786 and Rs. 13,81,278, respectively. It appea...
Tag this Judgment!Mahechchha Corporation and ors. Vs. Bhagwandas Dayaram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Guj22
ORDERC.V. Jani, J.1. This Revision Application filed by the original plaintiffs under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat below defendants' application Exh. 59 for impleading 31 specified persons as plaintiffs and also consequential orders passed by him below application Exh. 61 filed by the defendants and rejecting the plaintiffs' application Exh. 65 for review of the said orders.2. The applicants have filed Special Civil Suit No. 586 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property dated 1-3-86 executed by the opponents-defendants. One of the averments made in the plaint was that 34 plots had already been booked and possession thereof had been delivered to different persons.3. In this suit, the opponents-defendants submitted an application Exh. 59 for joining 31 specified persons as co-plaintiffs on the ground that these 31 pers...
Tag this Judgment!Dalvadi Laljibhai Gatorbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)2GLR974
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Rule. Mr. R.M. Chhaya, learned A.G.P. waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 4, i.e., State Government of Gujarat and Shri Vipul Mitra, District Collector, Surendranagar, respectively. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Advocate, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Surendranagar Joint Municipality, through its Administrator, and Surendranagar Joint Municipality through its Chief Officer, respectively. At the request and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties rule issued in the petition is ordered to be heard today.2. Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, and pray that the respondents be restrained from evicting the petitioners from the space occupied by them in the old vegetable market, near Shravan Talkies, Main Road, Surendranagar. The petitioners also pray that the repondents be directed t...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Buch and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR711]; (1994)2GLR1747
Pandya, J 1. The action of the State Government in not granting the gazetted status to the Stenographers Gr. I of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad is under challenge in this petition. A notification granting gazetted Class-II status to the stenographers Gr. I was issued by the State Government on 30-4-1986-Annexure 'C' (Page 22) to the petition. Pursuant to this Notification, the learned Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad on 28-5-1986 implemented the said Government Notification so far a Stenographers Gr. I on the establishment of the Ahmedabad City Civil and Sessions Court, are concerned and he was pleased by his order to grant gazetted Class-II status to them and redesignated them as 'Private Secretaries'. The Notification of the Principal Judge granting gazetted status to the Stenographers Gr. I of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, was required to be published in Government gazette and the same was sent by the learned Principal Judge to...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Machinery Mfg. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR1010(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the stamp, registration and other expenses of Rs. 72,776 in regard to the lease deed of land is a capital expenditure?' 2. Facts : The aforesaid question arises in the background of the fact that in the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee, Gujarat Machinery Mfg. Ltd., Kheda, inter alia, claimed total expenses of Rs. 72,776 towards execution of lease-deed expenses including stamp and registration charges. By the said deed, the assessee-company had let out its property at Worli, Bombay, which was purchased on September 30, 1974, from Vasant Engineering Works for its business purposes. After it was purchased, it was found that the area of the land was much less than what it should be to run the business of the assessee. The assessee-company, therefore, a...
Tag this Judgment!Motibhai Paragbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)2GLR1105
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Petitioners, who are sixty in number, are owners of different pieces of land situated in different villages, namely, Guvar, Lachharas and Shaherav, of Taluka Nandod, District Baroda. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to initiate proceedings for payment of compensation to the petitioners for the crops standing on the land under acquisition at the time of taking possession of the land. Petitioners have also prayed that respondents be directed to complete the proceedings immediately and make payment of the legitimate amount of compensation to the petitioners concerned in accordance with law. It is further prayed by amending the petition that the decision dated June 29, 1993, produced at Annexure 'E' to the petition be quashed and set aside.2. Pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) petitioners' land was acquired. Awards were ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.D.R. Laxmidevi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Guj)246; [1995]211ITR858(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions to this court for our opinion : '1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, right in law in holding that special surcharge should be levied on the basis of net unearned income and not on the basis of gross unearned income 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the question of levy of surcharge on unearned income required interpretation of the expression 'amount of unearned income included in the total income' it cannot be said that the matter was free from argument and debate and consequently rectification proceedings were bad in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in holding that this was not a f...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR889(Guj)
M.B. Shah, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and scheme of the Surtax Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant for deduction of interest charged under section 217(1A) and section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as part of 'income-tax in computing net chargeable profits' ?' 2. The aforesaid question arises in the background of the fact that for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee (Kashiram Textile Mills Private Limited), inter alia, claimed that in computing chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax Act'), deduction of interest payable under section 217(1A) and section 139 of the Income-tax Act should be reduced as provided under rule 2 of the Fi...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantkumar Motichand Doshi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: [1997]226ITR742(Guj)
ORDERJ.M. Panchal, J.1. The petitioner is being assessed as an individual under the provisions of the Indian IT Act, 1961 (the Act for short). The petitioner filed return of the income on 31st August, 1990 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,03,330. In response to the statutory notice issued by the Asstt. CIT (Inv.) (2), Rajkot, the petitioner appeared before him. The petitioner is the President of Shri Vitrag Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Rajkot, the registered office of which is situated at New Ghee Kanta Road, Rajkot. The petitioner is carrying on business of developing lands and putting up construction, in the name and style of M/s. Reliable Construction Company. The developer and contractor of Shri Vitrag Co-op. Housing is M/s. Reliable Construction Company. Having regard to the statements of persons recorded during the course of assessment proceedings and also the past record, the Asstt. CIT (Inv.) observed that booking of houses, allotment of houses, and calcu...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaiyalal Maneklal Sheth Vs. Competent Authority and Additional Colle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Guj130; (1995)2GLR1063
ORDERA.N. Divecha, J.1. The main question arising Sri all these petitions is common and it is to the effect as to what conditions can be imposed by the Competent Authority while approving the Scheme under Section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief). Since common questions of law and fact arise in all these four petitions, I have thought it fit to dispose of all these four petitions by this common judgment of mine. 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions move in a narrow compass. Each petitioner applied for permission under Section 21(1) of the Act in the prescribed form. By his order passed on 30th October 1979 in each case, respondent No. 1 granted such permission to each petitioner. Its copy is at Annexure-A to each petition. It was accompanied by certain conditions separately annexed therewith. Condition No. 3 thereof inter alia required the petitioner in each petition to commence construction within one year from the date of the order ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »