Gujarat Court June 2002 Judgments
Patel Kantilal Muljidas and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj27
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22-3-2002 passed by the Director of Municipalities, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in purported exercise of powers under Section 37of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the petitioner No. 1 is removed as the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are removed as the members of the Planning Committee and are also removed as the members/councillors of Unjha Municipality. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners came to be elected as Councillors of Unjha Municipality at the General election of Unjha Municipality (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipality'). It is the case of the petitioners that there are in all 36 councillors elected at the said election which took place in December, 1999 result of which was declared on 4-1 -2000. The case of the petitioners is that out of 36 councillors who came to be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Lalitchandra M. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR232(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions are referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (ii) Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order cannot be sustained is correct in law ?' 2. The respondent-assessee was a partner in the firm called L.M. Patel and Co. having a 40 per cent, share. While assessing the interest of the assessee as partner in the said firm, the question of the value of the property of the firm consisting of a five storeyed commercial-cum-office building on land admeasuring 11,043 sq. ft. came up for consideration. The Wealth-tax Officer adopted the value of the said property as determined b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electro Controls
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR624(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been, referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,272 on account of unpaid sales tax under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. We have heard Ms. Mona Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned counsel for the responsent-assessee.3. The controversy pertains to the amount which was collected by the respondent-assessee as sales tax in the last quarter of the previous year but payable statutorily in the subsequent year. The Tribunal had held in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri-kakollu Subba Rao and Co. v. Union of India : [1988]173ITR708(AP) .4. At the hearing today, our attention is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) . The apex c...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Lalitchandra M. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN682(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?2. Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax had exceeded his jurisdiction and his order cannot be sustained is correct in law ?'2. The respondent-assessee was a partner in the firm called L.M. Patel & Co. having 40 per cent share. While assessing the interest of the assessee as partner in the said firm, the question of value of property of the firm consisting of 5 storeyed commercial-cum-office building on land admeasuring 11,043 sq. ft. came up for consideration. The Wealth Tax Officer adopted the value of the said property as determined by the assessee's valuer. S...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Electro Controls
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN824(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1984-85:'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,272 on account of unpaid sales tax under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. We have heard Ms. Mona Bhatt, the learned counsel for the revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned counsel for the respondent- assessee.3. The controversy pertains to the amount which was collected by the respondent-assessee as sales tax in the last quarter of the previous year but payable statutorily in the subsequent year. The Tribunal had held in favour of the assessee in view of the decision or the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. v. Union of India : [1988]173ITR708(AP) .4. At the hearing today, our attention is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR677(SC) . The Apex C...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. VipIn K. Nagori
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR326(Guj)
M.S. SHAH, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 1/2 share of the deceased in the Hindu undivided family estate inherited from her husband was includible in her hands as a property passing or deemed to pass on her death ?'2. Smt. Harigangaben expired on February 19, 1977, leaving behind two sons, Jamnadas and Vipin, and a daughter. Her husband Kanaiyalal, had expired on February 20, 1971, after making a will dated April 21, 1969. By the said will, he had bequeathed his undivided interest in all the property of the Kanaiyalal Hindu undivided family upon the Hindu undivided family consisting of his two sons, Jamnadas and Vipin, and his wife, Harigangaben, and he directed his executors to give his undivided interest to the Hindu undivided family of Kanaiyalal as an independent owner thereof.3. On the death of Harigangaben, the Assistant Controller of Estat...
Tag this Judgment!Chhayaben Suhashbhai Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR624(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions are referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the life interest of the assessee in Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 1 and Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 2 has to be valued only by applying the provisions of Rule 1B of the Wealth-tax Rules and not by actuarial method of valuation representing the market value of the interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the value of life interest in Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No; 1 and Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 2 as determined by the actuary ?'2. The applicant-assessee is assessed to wealth-tax as an individual. The relevant valuation date was March 31, 1978. The applicant had a life interest in Suhasbhai Va...
Tag this Judgment!Chhayaben Suhashbhai Vs. Cwt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN5(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions are referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the life interest of the assessee in Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 1 and Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 2 has to be valued only by applying the provisions of rule 1B of the Wealth Tax Rules and not by actuarial method of valuation representing the market value of the interest in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the value of life interest in Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 1 and Suhasbhai Vadilal Family Trust No. 2 as determined by the actuary ?'2. The applicant-assessee is assessed to wealth-tax as an individual. The relevant valuation date was 31-3-1978. The applicant had a life interest in Subasbhai Vadilal F...
Tag this Judgment!Mamta Type Setting Works Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN34(Guj)
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 25-1-2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 4146 and 4147/A/96.2. The appellant had purchased certain machineries and installed the same. We are informed that the machineries were installed in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1984-85. The appellant claimed investment allowance on the said plant and machineries. Since the income of the appellant was not sufficient for availing of the entire investment allowance, the appellant also claimed carry forward of the investment allowance for the assessment year 1985-86. The return for assessment year 1984-85 was filed on 29-6-1984 and the assessment order was passed on 31-3-1987. Similarly, the return for assessment year 1985-86 was filed sometime in the year 1985 and the assessment order appears to have been passed in 1987.The Income Tax Officer thereafter issued notice under section 147 read with section 148 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Pal Papers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Corruplast Packaging (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]41SCL323(Guj)
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 15-2-2002, the Director, Mr. Yashpal Shah, of M/s. Pal Papers Pvt. Ltd., has filed an affidavit stating that an advertisement was published in English Daily. 'Indian Express', Baroda Edition, and in Gujarati Daily, 'Jansatta', Baroda Edition. Along with the affidavit, paper cutting is annexed.2. Despite publication of the advertisement in the newspaper on 12-4-2002, the respondent-company has not caused any appearance before this Court. Having gone through the averments made in the petition, it is clear that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debt. Considering the financial condition of the respondent-company, it is not in a position to clear its current liability and, therefore, it is just, equitable and in public interest that the respondent-company should be wound up. In view of this, following order is passed:(i) The respondent-company, M/s. Corruplast Packaging Private Limited, is ordered to be wound up. The Official...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »