Gujarat Court July 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagwati Autocast Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR481(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the applicant-Revenue, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,22,620 representing deferred sales tax, i.e., unpaid sales tax liability, did not attract the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In this reference, the only dispute is about disallowance under Section 43B for unpaid sum of Rs. 2,22,620 for sales tax. It is the stand of the assessee before the assessing authority that the State Government had allowed the assessee to return sales tax collected as a sort of incentive provided for the growth of industry. On this basis, it was contended by the assessee that its case was covered by the provisions contained in Section 43B of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer has, however, rejected the assessee's claim.3. Being aggrieved by the said order...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Bhagwati Autocast Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Guj)98; [2002]124TAXMAN452(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.In this reference, at the instance of the applicant-revenue, the following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1985-86 :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,22,620 representing deferred sales tax, i.e., unpaid sales-tax liability did not attract the provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act ?'2. In this reference, the only dispute is about disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for unpaid sum of Rs. 2,22,620 for sales tax. It is the stand of the assessee before the assessing authority that the State Government had allowed the assessee to return sales tax collected as a sort of incentive provided for the growth of industry. On this basis, it was contended by the assessee that its case was covered by the provisions contained in section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer has, however, rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Goodluck Silicate Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN715(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.In this reference, at the instance of the applicant revenue, the following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this court for assessment year 1987-88 :'Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and facts in deleting the addition made by the Income Tax Officer invoking the provisions of section 43B in respect of unpaid sales tax liability?'2. In this reference, the only dispute is about disallowance. under section 43B for unpaid sum of Rs. 2,05,607 for sales tax. It is the stand of the assessee before the assessing authority that the State Government had allowed the assessee to return sales tax collected as a sort of incentive provided for the growth of industry. On this basis, it was contended by the assessee that its case was covered by the provisions contained in section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer has, however, rejected to the assessee's claim.3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Income Tax Officer, the assessee has preferred an app...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Saurashtra Packaging (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Guj)83
Judgment K.A. Puj, J.At the instance of the applicant-revenue, the following question of law is referred to this court for its opinion for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 :'Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of sales-tax refund received by the assessee-firm was not to be included in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of section 41(1) nor provisions of sections 176(3A), 170(1)(b) and 28(iv) are attracted ?'2. In this case, the assessee-company was one of the partners of M/s Saurashtra Packaging Services and that firm stood dissolved with effect from 1-4-1983, and the business of the said firm was taken over as going concern by the assessee-company with effect from 1-4-1983, itself in the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1984-85. The assessee received sales-tax refund of Rs. 33,303 in assessment years 1984-85 and Rs. 12,887 as sales-tax refund in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1985-86. The assess...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Shree Talal Taluka Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN248(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. In this reference, at the instance of the applicant-revenue, the following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1984-85 :'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,01,81,278 made by the Income Tax Officer under section 43B in respect of outstanding sales tax amount, when the resolution of the government was passed on 14-12-1984 and the assessee had not discharged its liability on 31-3-1984, i.e., prior to the date of resolution ?'2. In this reference, the only dispute is about disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for unpaid sum of Rs. 1,01,81,278 for sales tax. It is the stand of the assessee before the assessing authority that the State Government had allowed the assessee to return sales tax collected as a sort of incentive provided for the growth of industry. On this basis, it was contended by the assessee that its c...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Mavji C. Lakum
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR268; (2003)ILLJ299Guj
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. In this petition, the main question that is involved is what is the scope of the Labour Court or the Tribunal or National Tribunal while exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act')? Though, this question has time and again come for consideration before the Apex Court as well as this Court and other High Courts, in this petition the same has been extensively argued by both the sides and I am, therefore, required to deal with that issue and determine the same on the basis of submissions made by the learned Counsels and the decisions and provisions of law cited by them in support of their respective submissions.2. The facts that have given rise to the present controversy can be stated as under :- 2.1. The petitioner is Central Bank of India having its Head Office at Bombay and a Branch Office at Jamnagar. The respondent joined the service of petitioner at Jamnagar on 1-9-1951 as a Peon and subsequently he was promote...
Tag this Judgment!Mithu Bawa Padiyar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(86)ECC485; (2003)1GLR128
C.K. Buch, J.1. Both these petitions are filed by the petitioners who are incidently husband and wife and have challenged the legality and validity of the notice to show cause issued under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAFEMA Act') and the subsequent orders of confiscation passed by the competent authority in exercise of powers vested under Section 7 of the SAFEMA Act. Both the petitioners have challenged notice containing same/ similar facts and mostly on similar grounds. So, both these petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It would be necessary to state some facts reflected from the petitions. The petitioner of Spl.C.A. No. 11079 of 2000 was detained by the competent authority i.e., detaining authority, on completion of investigation by the customs authority, vide detention order dated 21-7-1982 passed by the Government of Gujarat under...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Mahavir Builders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR332(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. These twelve tax appeals are filed by the Income-tax Officer, Rajkot, for challenging the common judgment and order dated September 29, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Tribunal, Rajkot, in one group of six appeals filed by Tirupati Builders and the other group of six appeals filed by Mahavir Builders in respect of the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Since in all these appeals common questions of fact and law are involved, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent-assessees, i.e., Tirupati Builders and Mahavir Builders, are two separate partnership firms engaged in the business of construction and selling of flats. Tirupati Builders constructed the property known as Ajanta Apartments at Rajkot. The construction was commenced in the year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 and it continued up to the year relevant to the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee had declared the cost of construction in the books of account maint...
Tag this Judgment!Morarji Desai Textile Labour Co-operative Industries Ltd. Vs. Thakoreb ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ129Guj
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. All the three petitions involved common questions of fact as well as law and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6445 of 2001 was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act in the year 1936. It had the composite textile unit at Navsari having 33,536 spindles and processing capacity of 5,000 meters per day. Some time before the year 1990 the Company faced financial difficulties and ultimately it became sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(O) of the Act. A reference was made to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'BIFR') under the provisions of Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A scheme came to be prepared whereby modernization of the plant and machinery with an estimated cost ...
Tag this Judgment!Babhubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia (Decd.) Through Heirs and L.Rs. Vs. Reg ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ236Guj
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Heirs and legal representatives of deceased Babubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia have filed First Appeal against the judgment and award dated January 8, 2002 passed by the Employees' State Insurance (hereinafter referred to as E.S.I.) Court in Second Appeal No. 16 of 1999. The E.S.I. Court has held that when deceased Babubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia was working with Alembic Glass he was suffering from the disease of Silicosis and that the deceased had 60% disability.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under:The learned counsel for the original appellant late Shri Babubhai Maganbhai Patanwadia submits that the appellant was serving in Alembic Glass Industries Limited, Vadodara since more than 10 years. In view of his employment he suffered an ailment of Silicosis. The original appellant was examined by the Medical Board on March 12, 1986. The Medical Board awarded 10% disability. The appellant has produced copy of the order passed by the Medical Board at Annexure-A t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »