Gujarat Court October 2001 Judgments
Amrish and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR180(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1 lakh debited in the accounts as payable to Chunilal Pranjivandas and Co. for the use of their office, telephone, staff and other facilities was a deductible item of expenditure ?' 2. The assessment year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1980. The assessee, which is a registered firm, occupied office premises situated at Manekchowk, Ahmedabad, of one Chunilal Pranjivandas and Co. of Bombay and also utilised telephone and staff of the said firm. The assessee had similarly occupied these premises and utilised the facilities since calendar year 1977. It appears that there is no written agreement between the parties. However, the assessee debited in its books a...
Tag this Judgment!Hemendrakumar R. Patel Vs. Heir of Maganbhai Dajibhai: Motibhai Maganb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3719
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr.A.R.Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.D.S.Pandit, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 2-3. Though served, none appeared for respondent No. 1.2. In the present petition, this Court has issued RULE on 19th April, 1994 and granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is the owner of land situated at village Kamalapura, Block No. 103, admeasuring 5 acres and 13 gunthas. The respondent No. 3 - Mamlatdar in Ganot Case being Case No. 2862/1983 by order dated 13th December, 1985 ordered that the transfer in favour of the present petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act and therefore, declared that the sale is invalid under the provisions of Section 84(c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Dahod. However, the Deputy Collector by h...
Tag this Judgment!Amrish and Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)27
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1 lakh debited in the accounts as payable to M/s. Chunilal Pranjivandas & Co. for the use of their office, telephone, staff and other facilities was a deductible item of expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1980. The assessee, which is a registered firm, occupied office premises situated at Manekchowk, Ahmedabad, of one M/s. Chunilal Pranjivandas & Co. of Bombay and also utilized telephone and staff of the said firm. The assessee had similarly occupied these premises and utilized the facilities since calendar year 1977. It appears that there is no written agreement between the parties. However, the assessee debited in its books a sum of Rs. 1,00,00...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanji Ramji Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3474
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.'95 of the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.76/94 convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. As per the Charge Ex.3 framed against him, the appellant was found in possession of 2 kgs. and 500 grams of Ganja on 12.9.94 at Platform No.4 of Surendranagar Railway Station without any pass or permit and he thereby committed offence under Sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the said Act. When the plea of the accused was recorded at Exh.4, the charge was read out to him and he stated that he was admitting the crime and that he was found to be in possession of 2 Kgs. and 500 grams of Ganja. According to him the allegation to this effe...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Build Vs. K. Mukund and Company
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR200b
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the original accused of Criminal Case No. 1180 of 1999 filed by the present respondent No. 1 herein in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, passed on 19th July, 2000 below Exh. 2 rejecting Application Exh. 2 filed by the present petitioners for discharging them for the charges punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The brief facts of the case are as under :The above said complaint came to be filed by present respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against all the present four petitioners for the return of two cheques worth of Rs. 1,25,000/-. On filing complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the present petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In response to the process issued, the petitioners filed disc...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Unjha Vs. Patel Jayantilal Purs ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj245; (2002)1GLR924
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. Learned single Judge by the impugnedorder has dismissed the petition by taking the view that once the petitioner'sterm as a nominee of the Municipal Council, Unjha to the Market Committee,Unjha came to an end, today, in his status as a councillor, he cannot continueas ex-offtcio nominee on the Market Committee.2. The relevant facts to be mentioned are that the petitioner who is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 1143, as a councillor of Municipal Council, Unjha, was nominated by the Council as a member of the Market Committee, Unjha. The term of the Municipal Council, Unjha came to an end on expiry of four years. Thereafter, fresh elections were held for constitution of Municipal Council and the appellant again came to be elected as a councillor.3. A short question of law has arisen before the learned single Judge and in appeal before us, whether on the above statutory events, the appellant can still continue as a member on the Market Committee as a councillor of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmad Salim Sabir HusseIn Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3453
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The appellant challenges the judgment and Order dated 9th July, 1996 of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 192 of 1995 convicting him for the offence Under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years.2. As per the charge Exh. 5 framed against the accused, he was found to be in possession of six packets of 'chares' in all weighing 910 grams on 5th August, 1995 at 5-50 p.m., at Rajkot. The prosecution version is that, on an information received by the Police Inspector Shri G. B. Kadel of 'B' Division Police Station of Rajkot city to the effect that Mohmad Salim Qureshi had come to the house of Bai Shanti, near a cement factory on Bhavnagar road within the area of the police station from U...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Vs. Lalbhai Finance Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-2001
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas820(Guj)
N.G. Nandi, J. 1. Heard Ms. Soparkar with Mr. S. N. Soparkar learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.C. Gandhi, learned counsel for Indus Bank, and Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta learned counsel for the respondent-company. 2. Ms. Soparkar learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the letter dated September 19, 2001 addressed to the petitioner by Dena Bank, one of the secured creditors of the respondent-company stating that the dues of the bank are to the tune of Rs. 2,40,48,436.98 and the bank has filed the suit , against the respondent-company in the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Ahmeda-bad. The said letter is kept on record. 3. This is the petition filed by the Reserve Bank of India under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, invoking Section 45IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (for short 'the Act') for winding up of the respondent-company on the contention that the conditions required under Section 45IA of the Act have not been fulfilled and the respondent-compan...
Tag this Judgment!Chandanben Chunilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3502
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. P.M. Thakkar for the petitioners and Mr. Sen, the learned AGP for the respondent authorities. Initially, notice was issued in this matter and it was made returnable on 8th May, 1996 and by way of ad-interim relief, status quo with respect to the subject matter of the petitioner was ordered to be maintained by both the parties, by order dated 23rd April, 1996. Thereafter, this Court has issued rule on 28th June, 1996 and ad-interim relief granted earlier was made confirmed till the final disposal of the petition.Against this petition, the respondent No.2 Competent Authority and the Deputy Collector Shri S.A. Patel has filed an affidavit in reply on 20th October, 1999 and certain documents have been brought on record. Rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner on 6th December, 1999. Thereafter, the additional affidavit in reply has been filed by the competent authority and the deputy collector respondent No. 2 Shri V.L. Patel on 12...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-2001
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN593(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.Having gone through the judgment of my learned Brother Justice M.S. Shah, in view of the reasons which follow hereinafter we record our opinion.2. The assessee is a Public Limited Company. The Company manufactures Fertilizers and Caprolactum. The assessment years are : 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the respective accounting periods being calendar years 1976, 1977 and 1978.3. The assessee entered into a contract for supply of plant and machinery equipments with M/s. Hitachi Zosen of Japan on deferred credit basis. Accordingly, the assessee was required to make payment in instalments over a period of time. The liability for the years under consideration has increased by reason of fluctuation in exchange rate. The assessee claimed the following amounts for each of the years under consideration as allowable business expenditure. (1) Rs. 9,21,658, (2) Rs. 26,49,336, (3) Rs. 57,77,322. The claim of the assessee was negatived and it was held that the expenditure in question was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »