Gujarat Court November 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sarabhai (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Guj)447; [2003]263ITR197(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The CIT, Ahmedabad applicant has filed this reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). At the instance of the Revenue the following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order made by the CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing collection charges amounting to 6 per cent of annual letting value under the head 'House property income' and also allowing balance amount from the income under Section 56 of the IT Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A)bifurcating the income as income from 'house property' and income from 'other sources' ?4. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order made by the CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim of depreciation ?5. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the claim of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S. Krishnavati Vahuji Maharaj Kalyanr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Guj)503; [2003]264ITR517(Guj)
A.R. Dave J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Baroda, the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the law, the determination of the value of the property by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is correct ?2. Whether, in law and on facts, only 1,000 sq. mtr. was required to be valued at the rate adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer but 10,090 sq. mtr. was required to be valued at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yd. ?3. Whether, in law and on facts, the value of Rs. 7,87,658 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 9,17,638 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 adopted by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) is correct ?'2. Shri M. R. Bhatt, senior standing counsel for the Central Government, has appeared for the applicant, whereas nobody has appeared for th...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Electric Control Gear Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN722(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench' B under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly when the assessee had agreed that depreciation claim will not be allowed for the period of 5 months, i.e., for the assessment year 1982-83,itwas open to the assessee to claim depreciation on the ground that the condition imposed was illegal?2. Whether, when in view of changing the accounting period, a condition was imposed by the Income Tax Officer and accepted by the assessee it was open to the assessee to subsequently challenge the said condition on the ground that it was illegal and not binding and that the assessee was entitled to depreciation for the period of 5 months for assessment year 1982-83?'2. Learned standing counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. G.S. Krishnavati Vahuji Maharajkalyanraiji Temple
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN339(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. At the instance of the Commissioner, Baroda, the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the law, the determination of the value of the property by Commissioner (Appeals) as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is correct?2. Whether, in law and on facts, only 1,000 sq. mtr. was required to be valued at the rate adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer but 10,090 sq. mtr. was required to be valued at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yd.3. Whether, in law and on facts, the value of Rs. 7,87,658 for assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 9,17,638 for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct?'2. Shri M.R. Bhatt, Senior standing counsel for the Central Government, has appeared for the applicant, whereas nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee, though served.3. The facts, in a nuts...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Kaiser-i-hind Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR666(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under the provisions of section 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 assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of the liability arising out of the fluctuation in exchange rates relatable to the repayment of the principal amount borrowed for purchase of capital equipment ?'2. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Central Government, has appeared for the Revenue, whereas nobody has appeared for the applicant-assessee though the notice of this court has been duly served upon the official liquidator as the applicant-company has been ordered to be wound up by this court.3. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel appearing for the respondent to a judgment delivered by this cou...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Linings Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]263ITR315(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. 1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following question has been referred to this court under the provisions of Section 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 Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Act were applicable in relation to (a) salary amount to Rs. 42,000 paid to Shri N. R. Shah, (b) consultancy fees of Rs. 12,000 paid to Shri V. R. Shah, and (c) professional fees of Rs. 4,500 paid to Shri S. R. Shah, in their individual capacities even though each of them was a partner in the assessee-firm in his capacity as karta of his Hindu undivided family ?' 2. The learned advocate, Shri B. D. Karia, has appeared for the applicant-assessee whereas learned senior Central Government standing counsel, Shri M. R. Bhatt, has appeared for the Revenue. 3. The facts giving rise to the reference in a nutshell are as under : ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bombay Conductors and Electrical (P) Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)439; [2003]264ITR485(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this Court at the instance of the Revenue by the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'C' under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, in the law and on facts, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the ITO to recalculate the interest under Section 244(1A) and issue appropriate refund orders to the assessee and the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the view taken by the CIT(A) ?'2. We have heard Mrs. Mona Bhatt, Central Government standing counsel, appearing for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee though the respondent-assessee has been duly served with the notice of this Court.3. The facts involved in the reference, in a nutshell, are as under :4. In pursuance of an order passed by the Tribunal the ITO had awarded interest to the assessee as per the provisions of Section 244(1A) of the Act as the assessee had become entitled to g...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrabhai Mafatlal Patel Vs. Mahipatji Shivaji Thakor and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj196; (2003)1GLR126
ORDERY.B. Bhatt, J.1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) (as amended in 1976), at the instance of the original plaintiff, challenging the order of the trial Court passed below Exh. 168, which was an application made by a third party to be joined as party defendant in the said suit. The trial Court had granted the said application and consequently the applicant in Exh. 168 was permitted to join as defendant No. 7 to the suit. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present revision.2. It is both relevant and pertinent to note that the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, which was published in the Gazette of India dated 30th December 1999. However, by virtue of the Notification issued under Section 1, Sub-section (2) of the said Amendment Act, the amendment came into force from 1st July 2002.3. For the present purposes, it requires to be noted that Section 12...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Linnings Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN258(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following question has been referred to this court under the provisions of section 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 Tribunal was justified in law in holding that provisions of section 40(b) of the Act were applicable in relation to (a) salary amount to Rs. 42,000 paid to Shri N.R. Shah (b) consultancy fees of Rs. 12,000 paid to Shri V.R. Shah and (c) professional fees of Rs. 4,500 paid to Shri S.R. Shah in their individual capacities even though each of them was a partner in the assessee-firm in his capacity as karta of his Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as the HUF') ?'2. Learned advocate Shri B.D. Karia has appeared for the applicant-assessee whereas learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.R. Bhatt has appeared for the revenue.3. The facts giving rise to the Reference in a nutshell are as...
Tag this Judgment!Packart (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN239(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.At the instance of the applicant-assessee the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-B :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 40,352 claimed under section 28, 36(1)(iii) or section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. Learned advocate Shri B.D. Karia has appeared for the applicant-assessee whereas learned senior Central Government standing counsel Shri B.B. Naik has appeared for the revenue.3. The assessee is a limited Company which had paid interest on the amount which was borrowed for the purpose of payment of income-tax. The amount of interest paid by the assessee was disallowed by the assessing officer. Being aggrieved by the disallowance the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but the appeal had been ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »