Gujarat Court December 2001 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.
Cit Vs. Coral Chemicals (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)435
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.The revenue has filed this appeal under section 269H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The admitted facts may be briefly noticed.2. On 13-8-1981, the factory building in dispute was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 4,11,000 to M/s. S. K. Chaudhary & Ors. the partners of M/s. Bharat National Industrial Corporation. B-6, Mayapuri, Phase II, New Delhi. Proceedings under section 269C of the Act were initiated. However, it was found that the value of the property was actually Rs. 4,08,695. Thus, the proceedings were dropped by the revenue.On 13-12-1983, this property was sold by M/s. S.K. Chaudhary, etc., to the respondent viz. M/s. Coral Chemicals (P) Ltd., New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 5,05,000. The proceedings under section 269C of the Act were again initiated. On 20-3-1985, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed an order under section 269F(6) for the acquisition of the property. He held that the actual value of the property was Rs. 9,25,400. Since the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. H.H. Vijaykuverba
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR397(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'A', has referred the following two questions at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the New Palace at Morvi could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee ? 2. If answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the New Palace at Morvi ?' 2. The assessment years are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 and the relevant valuation dates are March 31, 1975, March 31, 1976 and March 31, 1977, respectively. The assessee is the executor of the estate of the late Shri Mahendrasinhji, the Ruler of Mo...
Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR673(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following questions at the instance of the assessee as well as the Commissioner under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :At the instance of the assessee (assessment year 1977-78 only in R, A. No. 223/Ahd of 1987) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the embezzlement loss of Rs. 7,80,000 ?'For the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 in R. A. Nos. 224 and 225/ Ahd of 1987 :'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the commission paid to the directors as perquisite in the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, for the purposes of Section 40(c) of the Act ?'At the instance of the Revenue (assessment years 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81 in R. A. Nos. 241, 242 and 243/Ahd of 1987) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumsta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Carbon Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR294(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'B', has referred the following question at the instance of the Commissioner, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount paid for royalty to the collaborators is revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1980-81 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on June 30, 1979. The assessee, a limited company, entered into a collaboration agreement for obtaining technical know-how as well as various services in respect of spot technical assistance to promote sale of furnished carbon black manufactured by the assessee. Pursuant to the agreement, the assessee-company paid a sum of Rs. 22.25 lakhs for obtaining technical know-how and this sum was capitalised by the assessee in its books of account. Over and above this lumpsum payment, t...
Amarsinh Madhavji Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR919]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.C.H.Vora appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.Shraddha Trivedi, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 so also Mr.Jayesh Barot, learned advocate for Mr.H.S.Munshaw on behalf of the respondent No.3. Though notice of Rule has been served on the respondent No.2 but no one remained present on behalf of the respondent No.2.2. In the present petition, Rule has been issued by this Court on 19th December, 1991 and interim relief was refused by this Court on 17th February, 1992. Affidavit-in-reply are filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3, whereas no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2.3. It is most pertinent to note that this is a case of gross exploitation of the employee who is working as a Watchman with the respondent authorities. The facts of this case shows that the petitioner has been appointed as Watchman by the respondent No.3 by order dated 1st July, 1974 on temporary basis. A copy of the appoi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›