Gujarat Court August 2000 Judgments
Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR686(Guj)
1. This reference is at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that payment for bank guarantee commission was an expenditure of capital nature (for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure due to exchange rate difference was an expenditure of capital nature (for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78). 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that export insurance and freight, export packing charges and export stitching charges were not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act (for the assessment year 1978-79). 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrabhai Shyamsunder Purohit Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ829; (2000)4GLR806
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7th February 1998 of Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, allowing the Application u/s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and taking cognizance against the defence witness Mahendrabhai Shyamsundar Purohit for abeting in commission of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (for short 'the Act').2. Shri H.M.Parikh for the revisionist and Shri M.A.Bukhari, learned A.P.P. have been heard.3. Shri Parikh has urged that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the latest verdict of the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh v/s. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 318. He has also urged that in view of the case of Delhi Municipality v/s. Ram Kishan reported in AIR 1983 SC 67 the impugned order cannot be sustained. Lastly relying upon the Division Bench pronouncement of the Kerala High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagdish Processors P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR755(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of Sec-tion 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee was governed by Explanation (b)(vii) of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence the disallowance of interest of Rs. 49,984 was not justified ?'2. The facts leading to the reference are as under :The assessee-company had paid a sum of Rs. 8,41,608 by way of interest during the assessment year 1980-81. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 5,06,373 was paid to banks and so far as remaining amount of Rs. 3,33,235 was concerned, as it was covered by the provisions of Section 40A(8) of the Act, 15 per cent. of the said amount, being Rs. 49,984 was disallowed and added in the income of the assessee. The assessee had submitted that out of Rs. 3,33,235, a sum of Rs. 2,00,25...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Guj)409
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.This reference made by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' arises out of two cases. Ref. Appln. No. 338/Ahd/1984 and Ref. Appl. No. 339/Ahd/1984. As is apparent from the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal in the aforesaid two reference applications, the following questions of law are referred for our answer: Ref. Appln. No. 338/Ahd/1984'1. Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim development rebate on the expenditure incurred on the factory compound wall as claimed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of building rented out to the outsiders ?Ref Appln. No. 339/Ahd/19841. Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in holding that in computing the capital employed for granting deduction under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the debts and liabilities should form part of s...
Tag this Judgment!Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Guj)606
By the courtThis reference is at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. The following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that payment for bank guarantee commission was an expenditure of capital nature (For assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79).2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure due to exchange rate difference was an expenditure of capital nature (For assessment years 1976-77 to 1977-78).3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that export insurance and freight, export packing charges and export stitching charges were not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act (For assessment year 1978-79).4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rashiklal Ambalal Patel and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1083; (2001)1GLR770
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. Leave to delete respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Admit. Service of which is waived by learned Advocate, Mr. S. S. Panesar for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Upon joint request and in view of the urgency in the matter, the Appeal is taken up today for final hearing. 2. The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,57,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Baroda in M.A.C. Petition No. 776 of 1993 on 22-2-2000 for the premature untimely cutting short of life of a young, unmarried boy in an accident, which occurred, at 8.30 p.m., on 3-4-1993 near Government Hospital, Savli-Baroda Road in the District of Baroda of account of dash of motor cycle on which he was going with the Truck No. GTC 4431, is exorbitant and excessive which requires our interference in exercise of ourpower under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('Act' for short), is the sole question which is raised in this appeal, at the instance of Original Opponent, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Decease...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rashiklal Ambalal Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC733
J.N. Bhatt, J1. Leave to delete respondents nos.4 and 5.2. Admit. Service of which is waived by Learned Advocate, Mr. S. S. Panesar for respondents nos.1, 2 and 3. Upon joint request and in view of the urgency in the matter, the Appeal is taken up, today, for final hearing.3. The amount of compensation of Rs.5,57,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Baroda in MAC Petition No.776 of 1993 on 22-2-2000 for the premature untimely cutting short of life of a young, unmarried boy in an accident, which occurred, at 8.30 pm, on 3-4-1993 near Government Hospital, Savli-Baroda Road in the District of Baroda of account of dash of motor cycle on which he was going with the Truck No.GTC.4431, is exorbitant and excessive which requires our interference in exercise of our power under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('Act' for short), is the sole question which is raised in this appeal, at the instance of Original Opponent, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Deceased Ajayk...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Maganlal Vora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)3GLR2173
ORDER : Heard Mr. Suresh Payak, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Talati, learned A.G.P., for the respondent/State. 2. The petitioner is manufacturing a product known as 'Patrex', which claims to be an alternative fuel to petrol. The stock was seized. On the petitioner going in appeal, he was initially asked to furnish Bank guarantee for release of the stock. However, the stock has been released without insisting on Bank guarantee as Mr. Payak, learned Advocate states. The petition is filed being aggrieved with the insistence on the Bank guarantee. 3. The other grievance of the petitioner was that the product in question is not an essential commodity. Hence, nothing should be insisted upon under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('the Act' for brevity). In response to the allegation that Stock Register is not maintained, Mr. Payak states that action is being taken on some solvent used and what is produced is not something which falls under the Act. It is a technical matt...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhar C. Karu Vs. Managing Director, Gujarat State Handloom Developm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2002)1GLR229
R.M. Doshit, J. 1. Learned Advocates Mr. Pancholi appearing forthe petitioner and Mr. B. R Gupta appearing for the respondent No. 1 arenot present on call. Heard learned A.G.P. Mr. Premal Joshi for the respondentNos. 2 & 3.2. The Gujarat State Handloom Development Corporation Limited, the respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Corporation') had on 13th July, 1989 published an advertisement inviting the applications from eligible candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes for the post of Deputy Manager (Purchase & Processing). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner made an application. By communication dated 15th September, 1989, the petitioner was called to remain present for interview on 19th September, 1989. Though the petitioner was the only applicant present for interview and though he was eligible, he was not selected, instead a fresh advertisement was published on 25th September, 1989. Upon inquiry, the petitioner learnt that the petitioner was not co...
Tag this Judgment!ishwarbhai Marghabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: (2000)4GLR425
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Shri Y.N. Oza, learned Sr. Advocate is appearing for the petitioner. Shri S.N. Shelat, learned Addl. A.G. is appearing for the respondents with Shri A.D. Oza, learned Government Pleader and Shri M.G. Doshit for M/s. M.G. Doshit & Co.2. Rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence the judiciary is not only the third pillar but the central pillar of the democratic State. In a democracy like ours, where there is written constitution which is above all individuals and institutions and where the power of judicial review is vested in the superior courts, the Judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform namely to oversee that all the individuals and institutions including executive and the legislature act within the frame work of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peacef...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »