Gujarat Court October 1995 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.
Ajit D. Padival Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR382
B.C. Patel, J.1. By way of Public Interest Litigation, in these two petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the State Government in reducing the limit of Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary in view of the Resolution dated 24th July, 1995 delimiting the area of 'Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary' on the ground that the said action is unfair, bad in law, illegal and suffering from non-application of mind and would amount to by-passing the judgment and order rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 13139 of 1993, 6061 of 1994 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 1994. The State Government altered the boundary of the sanctuary in accordance with the Resolution dated 24th July, 1995 passed by the Legislative Assembly under Section 26-A(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are briefly narrated hereinbelow:2. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 18(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the State Govern...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raipur Manufacturing Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)63
M.S. Shah, J.1. At the instance of Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'B', arising from its order in ITA No. 1494/Ahd/81, in respect of the asst. yr. 1978-79.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that claim of the assessee for the payment of royalty of Rs. 19,449 for the use of trade mark was allowable as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 9,918 paid to the managing director for reimbursement of medical expenditure was liable to be excluded while computing disallowance under s. 40(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. As far as Question No. 1 is concerned, the same arises from the assessee's claim for deduction of sum of Rs. 19,449 as royalty payment for the use of trade mark 'Tebilized'. The ITO disallowed the claim...
Chhotalal Morarji Adhia Vs. Competent Authority and Addl. Collector, U ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR557
A.N. Divecha, J.The petitioners of these three petitions are brothers. The orders under challenge in these petitions are common for all three brothers. The properties involved in all these three petitions are also the same. Common questions of law and fact are found arising in all these petitions. I have therefore thought it fit to dispose of all these three petitions by this common judgment of mine.1. The order passed by the competent authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 in each petition) on 25th June, 1985 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (the Ceiling Act (for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 in each petition) on 28th December, 1988 in Appeals Nos. Rajkot-87 of 1985, Rajkot-5 of 1986 and Rajkot-76 of 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashoka Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Guj)1
M.S. Shah, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to this Court by Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B, arising from its order dt. 20th Aug., 1982, in ITA No. 1147/Ahd/80, in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78 : ' (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 exchange difference of Rs. 1,32,993 was allowable as revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the claim of the assessee for Rs. 16,237 for the royalty paid on trade mark was allowable as revenue expenditure (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee for interest under s. 220(2) of the Act as revenue expenditure ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, the relevant facts found by the Tribunal are that the assessee...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)404; [1996]219ITR550(Guj)
The Court 1. At the instance of the CIT, Gujarat-I, Ahmedabad, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order in ITA Nos. 952 & 945/Ahd/78-79 relating to the asst. yr. 1971-72 to this Court for its opinion : '1. Whether, in computing the capital employed for the purpose of relief under s. 80J, an amount of Rs. 8,22,913 representing uninstalled machinery should be taken into consideration 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim development rebate in respect (a) road and culverts. compound walls and medical equipments, pumps and drainage and (b) assets of training centre and further even though it was specifically brought out before the Tribunal in regard to training centre assets that some items worth Rs. 21,430 would fall under the head 'office appliances' on which development rebate was not admissible 3. Whether, relief un...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohit Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Guj)556; [1996]219ITR228(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. At the instance of Revenue the Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'C' Bench referred the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dt. 2nd Dec., 1982 in relation to asst. yr. 1977-78 in the case of the respondent assessee : '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 liability of Rs. 15,58,399 for Payment of Bonus Act 1965 (as amended) was allowable under the provision of the IT Act, 1961 in the assessment year under consideration ?' Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, in our opinion, the question is of academic importance as will appear from the facts to be stated hereinafter and need not be answered. 2. As a result of coming into force of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 1977 (hereinafter called the Act of 1977) which came into force w.e.f. 3rd Sept., 1977, the assessee incurred additional liability of Rs. 15,58,399 for payment of bonus. The asses...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Maniben Mahadev.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Guj)42
RAJESH BALIA, J :The Tribunal, Ahmedabad A Bench at the instance of CWT, Rajkot has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dt. 28th Feb., 1980 in WTA No. 142/Ahd/1978-79 for the asst. yr. 1969-70 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of the WTO levying penalty under s. 18(1)(a) was not passed in pursuance to CWTs order under s. 18(2A) and there was thus a right of appeal available to the assessee without any bar of s. 18(2B) of the WT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has been right in law in confirming the order of the AAC when the ITO had reduced the penalty to 50% of the minimum in view of the order of the CWT made on the application of the assessee under s. 18(2A) of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal against the order of the WTO imposing penalty of Rs. 14,520 being 50% of the mini...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Maniben Mahadev
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR259(Guj)
ORDER--Appeal against penalty under s. 18(1)(a)--Order under s. 18(2A) already passed.Ratio :An appeal lies against the order of penalty imposed under section 18(1)(a) where the order of the Commissioner under section 18(2A) has already come into existence before imposition of penalty by the Wealth Tax Officer.Held :From the scheme of the provisions it is apparent that the scope and jurisdiction of the two provisions, namely, 18(1)(a) and 18(2A), are entirely different and operate in different fields. The approach to the Commissioner for reducing or waiving the penalty can be made at any time, even before the penalty was actually imposed or after the penalty has been imposed by the authority; the Commissioner can be approached even during the pendency of the appeal against the orders imposing penalty or he can also be approached after the remedies of imposition of penalty has been exhausted. In view of the aforesaid clear distinction, in the field of operation of the two provisions, it...
Natwarlal Chandulal Gandhi Vs. the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Guj156; (1996)1GLR278
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J. 1. This Special Civil Application has been filed seeking direction to quash the order dated 24-11-1989 passed in Revision Application No. 33(4) I of 1986 by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Baroda Division, Baroda, whereby the order dated 31-8-1985 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Surat, has been upheld.2. The petitioner is a trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Surat issued a notice of demand in respect of contribution. The trust objected to the payment of contribution on the ground that the trust is exempted from payment of contribution it being a public charitable trust for secular education.3. In the opinion of the Joint Charity Commissioner, the petitioner was not entitled to exemption as it is hot a recognised institution for the purpose of imparting secular education. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the. institution is not required to b...
Mihir Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)412; [1997]225ITR327(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. The aforesaid reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', Ahmedabad. From the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal, it appears that while three questions have been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, as many as seven questions have been referred to this court for its decision at the instance of the assessee. The issues raised in this reference relate to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76.2. The questions referred to the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue which are reproduced hereinbelow :' 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 expenditure on items like gas and electricity expenses, motor car, personal accident insurance premium, telephone expenses were not in the nature of perquisites for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›