Gujarat Court July 2002 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. Fabriquip (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN820(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. The assessee was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elscope (P) Ltd. On 1-3-1977, the assessee had sold its undertaking to Elscope (P) Ltd. under certain terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement entered into between the assessee and Elscope (P) Ltd. with which we are not concerned in this reference.2. In the assessment framed under section 143(3), read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income Tax Officer brought to tax income from house property on notional basis in respect of certain properties transferred to Elscope (P) Ltd. Further, he did not allow the assessee's claim for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation, development rebate and investment allowance of the earlier years on the ground that the assessee had ceased to carry on business during the year under reference. The Income Tax Officer had also charged interest under section 215 of the Act.In appeal, following his order dated 29-2-1984 in t...
Cit Vs. Natvarlal V. Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN39(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. In all, these four references were filed by the revenue and they are pertaining to different assessment years. Income Tax Reference Nos. 154 of 1989 is in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, 150 of 1989 is in respect of the assessment year 1978-79,162 of 1989 is in respect of the assessment year 1981-82, and 180 of 1988 is in respect of assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Since common issue is involved in all the four references, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that no sub-partnership was formed between the assessee and his wife Smt. Suryakanta Natwarlal and the share of the assessee's wife could not be included in the income of the assessee, is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record ?'Although there is slight variation in frami...
Parikh Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN468(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 20,838 in respect of unit No. I under section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1982-83. The Income Tax Officer has disallowed the interest under section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the said disallowance and the assessee has preferred the second appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the disallowance of interest made by the Income Tax Officer.3. Heard Mr. S.N. Divetia, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee and Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.4. At the time of hearing of this reference, ou...
Shankarbhai Nathalal Prajapati Vs. Maize Products
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR829]; (2002)3GLR425
Akshay H. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner was working as a Shift Chemist in the respondent-Company since 17th November, 1981. The said designation was subsequently changed as Starch Technician. The respondent served him with a notice dated 12th June, 1996 calling upon him to show cause that his service should not be terminated. According to the petitioner, before he could reply to the said notice the respondent-Company terminated his service by giving a telegraphic intimation. He, therefore, raised industrial dispute which ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court by way of reference being Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1551 of 1996. In the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, it was, averred by him that he was working with the respondent-Company for the last 15 years as Starch Technician and he was discharging his duties sincerely and faithfully. Despite that, he was given show-cause notice dated 12th June, 1996 and before he could give reply his service wa...
Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producer Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Guj)212; [2003]260ITR141(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions are referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 : '1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its interpretation and application of Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire expenditure of Rs. 39,24,979 was not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35C 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that only ten per cent. of the expenses incurred on dissemination of information or demonstration of modern techniques and the methods of agricultural, animal husbandry or dairy or poultry farming or advice on such techniques or methods is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35C of the Act 4. Whether, on the facts and in the ci...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Arvindkumar Chandulal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR594(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. When this reference reached hearing today, Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, made a specific request that since this reference is covered by a reported decision of this court and the matter is pending since 1994, the reference may be taken up for hearing by this Bench notwithstanding the fact that one of us (Mr. Justice K.A. Puj) had appeared as counsel for the assessee at the hearing before the Tribunal.2. In view of the above request, we have taken up the reference for hearing today since the reference is pending since 1994 and the controversy is concluded by a reported decision.3. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no gift by the assessee in favour of the two partners of the firm whose shares had increased after the re...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Maneklal Hargovandas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR592(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 1981-82 :'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that when the assessee had reduced his share in partnership firm from 25 per cent. to 4 per cent. there was no taxable gift ?'2. The assessee reduced his share of 25 per cent. in a partnership firm to four per cent. with the result that the shares of the other three partners correspondingly went up to exactly the percentage by which the assessee's share was reduced. The Gift-tax Officer valued this 21 per cent. share by taking into account the average five years' profit and debiting three years' purchase thereon ultimately arriving at a figure amounting to Rs. 90,247. The assessee had already declared a gift amounting to Rs. 25,000 and, therefore, the Gift-tax Officer totalled up both these figures and after giving the basic exemption, arrived at a fi...
Cgt Vs. Arvindkumar Chandulal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN1107(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. When this reference reached hearing today, Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the revenue, made a specific request that since this reference is covered by a reported decision of this court and the matter is pending since 1994, the reference may be taken up for hearing by this Bench notwithstanding the fact that one of us (Hon'ble Mr Justice K.A. Puj) had appeared as the counsel for the assessee at the hearing before the Tribunal.In view of the above request, we have taken up the reference for hearing today since the reference is pending since 1994 and the controversy is concluded by a reported decision.2. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no gift by the assessee in favour of the two partners of the firm whose shares had increased af...
Alkapuri Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN36(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of additional tax of Rs. 18,907 in terms of the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 104 of the Act ?'2. The Income Tax Officer passed an order under section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposing an additional tax of Rs. 18,907 on the undistributed profits for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The calculation of the levy is done in the following manner :Rs.Gross total income as per order 60,180Less : Tax payable 22,366 Distributable income 37,814Less : Dividend distributed within 12 months immediately following expiry of previous year Nil Shortfall 37,814Additional Income Tax under section 104 at the rate of 50 per cent o...
Cit Vs. Mehta Parikh and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN466(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.At the instance of the revenue, following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this court :'Whether, in law and on facts, the payments on account of bonus and leave encashment to the directors were required to be excluded for computing the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Heard Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue. No one appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee, though the notice was duly served.3. The Income Tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 64,681 out of directors' remuneration under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Being aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Income Tax Officer was confirmed. While confirming the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the order of his predecessor in office for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee has t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »