Gujarat Court February 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. Sarabhai Chemical (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN734(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law, is referred by the Tribunal for our opinion for the assessment years 1981 -82 and 1982-83 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deletion of Rs. 4,726 and Rs, 3,544 being interest on deferred sale consideration was justified ?'2. While framing assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82, the Income Tax Officer has brought to tax an amount of Rs. 4,726 being the interest on deferred sale consideration charged at the rate of 11 per cent per annum. The Income Tax Officer has observed in his assessment order that there was a clear distinction between the facts as prevalent in the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and in the present assessment year, i.e., 1981-82 insofar as even as per the modified agreement interest was payable with effect from 1-7-1979. The Income Tax Officer has also observed that interest was chargeable for the reasons mentioned in the assessment orders for the...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Guj)318
Judgment K.A. Puj, J.IT Ref. No. 102 of 1987 is arising out of R.A. Nos. 904 and 905/Ahd/1985 preferred by the revenue before the Tribunal. These two reference applications are, in turn, arising out of ITA Nos. 216 & 231/Ahd/82 which were filed by the assessee as well as the department before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, for assessment year 1973-74. Since the present IT Ref. No. 102 of 1987 is arising out of two separate reference applications, it is ordered to be split-up in IT Ref Nos. 102 and 102-A of 1987.2. At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal had referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :1. 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the claim of the assessee for investment allowance on compound walls and fencing ?'2. 'Whether the expenditure of Rs. 1,84,197 being guest-house expenses is not disallowable under section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. 'Whether the assessee is entitled to the allowance of expenditure of Rs. 24,375...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sharad Narandas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Guj)41
R.K. Abichandani, J.The original IT Ref. No. 73 of 1987 which related to five assessment years, namely, 1978-79 to 1982-83 arising out of five appeals (ITA Nos. 1842 to 1846) decided by the Tribunal is ordered to be split up into five references. They are numbered as IT Ref. 73, 73A, 73B, 73C and 73D of 1987 for the respects years 1978-79 to 1982-83.2. The Tribunal has referred the following question in these references for the opinion of this court :'Whether, in law and on facts, the income of the Sharad Family Trust was taxable in the hands of the assessee?'3. Reference No. 100 of 1987 (arising from two appeals 122 and 123 of 1985) is directed to be split up into two references, namely, 100 and 100A of 1987 in respect of the two assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court in those references :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Bidi Tamaku and Timrupan Merchants Association and anr. Vs. St ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1572
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed on behalf of the members of the Gujarat Bidi Tamaku and Timrupan Merchants Association and Shree Nathjee Trading Company, whereby regulatory provisions and restraint imposed on import of timru leaves to the State of Gujarat from other States, under the provisions of the Gujarat Minor Forest Produce Trade Nationalisation Act, 1979 and the Gujarat Minor Forest Produce Trade Nationalisation Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively), have been challenged.2. The cause of action for challenging the action of the respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and respondent No. 2-Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is said to have arisen, when various quantities of timru leaves imported by various traders as members of the petitioner-Association (as shown in Schedule Exh. A.) were not allowed to be tra...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Surveyors Planners Association and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj344; (2002)2GLR1545
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates. The petitioners before this Court are the Association of Surveyors & Planners of Surat City and some of its members. The petitioners challenge the modification incorporated in the Draft Development Plan prepared by the Surat Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Authority') with respect to the development of the city of Surat and the surrounding urbanisable lands. The impugned modification has been made by the State Government under the powers conferred under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), under the Notification dated 31st January, 1986.2. It appears that prior to the impugned Notification, Regulation 9.5 of the Draft Development Plan prepared by the Authority reads as under :-'9.5 Responsibility of Licensed Architect/Engineer/Surveyor : (i) It shall be the duty of the person who prepar...
Tag this Judgment!Sattarbhai Alibhai Patni Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj421; (2002)4GLR3668
ORDERKundan Singh, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13-1-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 Director of Municipalities, Ahmedabad whereby the petitioner has been removed from the office of Councillor of Dhoraji Municipality.2. The petitioner was elected as a Councillor of Dhoraji Municipality. This petition has been filed on the allegation that he was elected as a councillor of the municipality and is functioning as a councillor with effect from 3-1-1996. The petitioner was also elected as a Chairman of the Transport Committee of the Municipality. On account of consecutive five public holidays in April, 1998, the municipality was closed consecutively for five days from 8-4-1998 onwards. The petitioner being the Chairman of the Transport Committee was informed that the vehicles attending emergency duty, like ambulance, water pumping department, vehicles looking after street lights etc. needed diesel and an...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Maganbhai Mulabhai Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3247
Kundan Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order Annexure-G passed by the State Government rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner and confirming the Order passed by the Collector, Banaskantha in appeal and the Order passed by the Competent Authority - Dy. Collector.2. The petitioner is an owner of land bearing blocks Nos. 193 and 191 adjoining to blocks Nos. 185, 186 and 187 owned by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The respondent No. 6 wanted to sell block No. 185 as it was separate from other lands in Order to pay the amount for purchase of other land. The said land being adjoining to the land of the petitioner, the petitioner agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 20,000/- and paid Rs. 5000/- on 20-4-1975, Rs. 4000/- on 7-5-1980 and remaining amount of Rs. 11,000/- on 21-5-1980. The registered sale deed was executed on the same day i.e. 21-5-1980 and the petitioner was put into possession of that land. Since then the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Trikamlal Brahmbhatt Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR835
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Ms. Harsha Devani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and it is accordingly disposed of by this Judgment.2. The petitioner, who was selected as Class-I Officer in Gujarat Administrative Service, has challenged the order dated 13-2-1990, cancelling his appointment order as well as the subsequent order of the Department dated 9-12-2000, by which his representation is rejected.3. The petitioner had applied for appointment to the aforesaid Class-I post in response to the advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in November, 1985, by which applications were invited for combined competitive examination for the post of Gujarat Administrative Service Class-I and Gujarat Civil Services Class-I and II. The petitioner was, ultimately, selected by the G.P.S.C. and the name of the petitioner was kept at Serial No. 18 in the select list of...
Tag this Judgment!Harsutrai J. Raval Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR315(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain of Rs. 19,018 was exigible to tax ?'2. The assessee in respect of the previous year which was S. Y. 2036 (October 29,1979 to November 7,1980, relevant assessment year 1981-82), had filed his return of income on June 20, 1981, declaring income of Rs. 29,650. The assessee's income was from salary, house property, honorarium from the Municipal Corporation and short-term capital gain on the sale of building.3. On March 23,1979, the assessee had purchased a new house for Rs. 45,000 on which he spent Rs. 9,650 and sold it on May 14,1980, for Rs. 55,000 claiming deduction of Rs. 54,650 and paid tax on the capital gain amount of Rs. 350. The Income-tax Officer (the 'ITO') noticed that in the earlier assessment year 1980-81, the assessee was given e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panna Knitting Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR195(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in I. T. R. No. 28 of 1987 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be allowed from the total income which is not confined to the income of the (new) units ?' [bracketed portion is added by us].'2. Similarly, in I. T. R. No. 164 of 1988 for the assessment year 1982-83, the following question of law was raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act should be allowed from the total income (which is not confined to the income) of the new units ?' [bracketed portion i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »