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.
Kaira Dist. Co-op. Milk Producer Union Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN473(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.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 10 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 circumst...
Cwt Vs. Chinubhia Lalbhai (Huf)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN834(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. At the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the property at plot No. 614-B, 'Panchvati Gulbhai Tekra Area', Ahmedabad, qualified for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Wealth Tax Act, 1957) ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the benefit of valuation under rule 1 BB of the Wealth Tax Rules was available for the property at plot No. 61B 'Panchvati Gulbhai Tekra Area', Ahmedabad ?3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order made by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) directing the Wealth Tax Officer to value the unquoted shares/equity of private limited companies in accordance with the principles laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh : [1981]129ITR46(Guj) ?'2. Heard Mr. Manis...
Harshadkumar S. Mehta Vs. Cwt
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN183(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. The assessee-applicant has moved an application under section 27(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requesting this court to permit the Tribunal to refer the questions of law mentioned therein. This court, accordingly, passed an order on statement of case and in pursuance of the said directions, the following questions of law were referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the valuation of Rs. 10,37,153 adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for assessment year 1973-74 disregarding the valuation of the registered valuer as well as the Valuation Officer was correct ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in considering the DVO's report for upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order even when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had mainly adopted the report of ...
Cwt Vs. Chandrakant Ratilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN65(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 1981-82 :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee relating to exemption under section 5(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?'2. On the relevant valuation date, the assessee's wealth consisted of movable assets only. In the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of investment amounting to Rs. 1,50,000 made in industrial concerns. The Wealth Tax Officer, relying upon his orders in earlier years, rejected the assessee's said claim. But in appeal the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following a number of decisions of the Tribunal on the point in several similar cases, accepted the assessee's claim. The revenue's second appeal to the Tribunal also failed and the view of ...
Jatinbhai Nyalchand Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3465
C.K. Buch, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issuance of appropriate writ or direction and also to quash and set aside the Order of detention dated 24-1-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.B.M. Act').2. It is contended that the Order under challenge is illegal and invalid on account of subsequent event even after the passing of the Order, the continued detention of the petitioner has become bad in law.3. Heard leaerned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.R. Prajapati, Ms. P.J. Davawala, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel and Mr. A.Y. Kogje, learned A.G.P., for other respondents.4. The Order of detention has been challenged on various grounds mentioned in the memo of petition and the leaerned Counsel has taken me through the entire memo....
Cgt Vs. Maneklal Hargovandas Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN55(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 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 from 25 per cent in a partnership firm to 4 per cent with the result that the shares of the other three partners correspondingly went upto exactly the percentage by which the assessee's share was reduced. The Ground Tax Officer valued this 21 per cent share by taking into account the average 5 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 Ground Tax Officer totalled up both these figures and after giving the basic exemption, arrived at a figure of ...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR852
Jayant Patel, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 14-5-2001 (Annex. 'A'), and the order dated 22-10-1999, (Annex. 'D'), and the order dated 10-9-1999 (Annex. 'B'), whereby it is communicated to the petitioner Market Committee that the decision of the sub-committee may be placed for approval before the General Board of the Market Committee. 3. Mr. Jhaveri for the petitioner submitted that the sub-committee has given all the powers of the General Board, and contended that under Section 25(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), once the Market Committee has delegated the powers to the subcommittee, the sub-committee enjoys all powers on behalf of the Market Committee, and thereafter, any decision, taken by the sub-committee is only to be taken note of and they are not required to be placed for the purpose of a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shreyas Nidhi,
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR712(Guj)
K.A. PUJ, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Sections 13(2)(h) and 13(3) applied and whether the assessee-trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee has claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, denied such exemption to the assessee on the ground that the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act were applicable to it. Further, the Income-tax Officer took an adverse inference against the assessee as he was of the view that the assessee had not filed the audit report as contemplated under Section 12A(b) of the Act, within the prescribed time. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) were not applicable in the assessee's case. He further held that the default if at all in filing the audit report ...
Anup Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj112; (2003)1GLR432; (2003)1GLR434
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mengdey waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner was originally incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the name of Anup Industries Private Limited on 21st August, 1961. As required by the provisions of the Companies Act, the petitioner at its extraordinary general meeting held on 12th December, 1994 passed a Special Resolution to change its name from Anup Industries Private Limited to Anup Industries Limited. The Registrar of Companies, Gujarat and Dadra and Nagar Haveli issued certificate of change on 15th December, 1994 in pursuance of Section 23(1) of the Companies Act. One of the properties held by the Private Limited Company was a lease of two industrial plots from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (G.I.D.C.) and as required by them two declarations were made on 17th August, 1999 for the limit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arunaben Sumankumar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Guj)470; [2003]259ITR386(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 : 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee. 3. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee filed her return of income on September 29, 1983, at Rs. 26,020. Trie Income-tax Officer accepted the return and made the assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act, 1961. However, on a perusal of the record of the assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, the Commissioner of Income-tax noticed that the assessee had filed her return of net wealth for the first time for the assessment year 1983-84 on September 29, 1983, showing gold ornam...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »