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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deversons P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR336(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 1984-85 :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,229 on account of 'export cash assistance' treating the same as a capital receipt ?'2. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue has invited our attention to the provisions of Section 28(iiib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and submitted that in view of the aforesaid clause inserted by the Finance Act, 1990, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1967, the amount of export cash assistance received by the assessee was a revenue receipt and, therefore, liable to be taxed.4. Clause (iiib) of Section 28 inserted with retrospective effect from April 1, 1967, reads as under :'28. The following income shall be chargeable to in...
Cit Vs. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN60(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 year 1980-81 :'1. Whether the assessee is entitled in law to the allowance of Rs. 52,000 being deferred annuity premium paid in respect of two managing directors of the assessee ?2. Whether the assessee is entitled in law to the allowance of Rs. 44,000 being the expenses incurred on issue of bonus shares ?'2. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the applicant-revenue and Mr. M.J. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.3. Our attention is invited to the decision of this court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. CIT : [1994]210ITR358(Guj) wherein this court had an occasion to consider several questions including the above referred two questions.In respect of the premium on deferred annuity on the lives of the directors, this court held that where the ownership of the policy is with the company, the company has the ...
Cit Vs. Arunaben Sumankumar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN57(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 1983-84:'Whether the Tribunal is right in law insetting aside the order made by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, the 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 29-9-1983 at Rs. 26,020. The Income Tax Officer accepted the return and made the assessment under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, on perusal of the record of the assessment in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, the Commissioner noticed that the assessee had filed her return of net wealth for the first time for the assessment year 1983-84 on 29-9-1983 showing gold ornament...
Cit Vs. Smt. Chanchalben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN476(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law is referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the compensation money received by the other coparceners really belonged to the coparceners and not to the assessee and thereby deleting the interest addition made by the Income Tax Officer ?'2. While dealing with this issue, the Tribunal in its order dated 7-12-1989 has held that the controversy is covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 19-6-1985 in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1977-78 in IT Appeal No. 2588 (Ahd) of 1984. Following the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the department.3. The earlier year's order was challenged in reference before this court in Income Tax Reference Nos. 6 and 27 of 1986. While disposing of the above two references vide judgment dated 14-6-2001, it was held in para 4 as under :'In view of the fact that in a similar c...
Cit Vs. Simplex Rayon and Silk Processors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN838(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law is referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest paid to Hindu undivided family partner under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The Income Tax Officer had disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act the interest paid to the partner. That partner was a Hindu undivided family and the disallowance was made on the ground that a partial partition of that Hindu undivided family took place after the amendment which nullified the effect of that partition. The Commissioner had confirmed that disallowance following his decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1980-81. In that decision, the Commissioner had followed two decisions of the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal. He had observed that the substance of those two decisions was that section 171(4) of the Act had operation only ...
Cit Vs. Shreyas Nidhi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN840(Guj)
JUDGIMENTK.A. Puj, J. At the instance of the revenue, 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 entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee has claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Income Tax Officer, however, denied the said 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 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 ...
Cit Vs. Deversons (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN472(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 1984-85 :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,229 on account of 'export cash assistance' treating the same as a capital receipt ?'2. Heard Mrs. Mona Bhatt, the learned standing counsel for the applicant-revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee.3. The learned counsel for the revenue has invited our attention to the provisions of section 28(iiib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid clause inserted by the Finance Act, 1990 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1967, the amount of export cash assistance received by the assessee was a revenue receipt and, therefore, liable to be taxed.4. Clause (iiib) of section 28 inserted with retrospective effect from 1-4-1967 reads as under :'Profits and gains of business or profession.The following i...
Cit Vs. Gujarat Carbon (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN477(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 77,69,521 paid for royalties to collaborators is allowable as revenue expenditure ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that if the unpaid sales tax liability pertaining to the last quarter is paid before the time prescribed for filing of return under section 139(1), the provisions of section 43B cannot be invoked ?'2. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue and Mr. Manish J. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.3. As far as the first question is concerned, our attention is invited to the decision dated 5-12-2001 of this court in the case of this very assessee in CIT v. Gujarat Carbon Ltd. : [2002]254ITR294(Guj) wherein this co...
Cit Vs. Ajay Builders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN842(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. At the instance of the revenue, following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim for investment allowance on plant and machinery engaged in the business of construction ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. The respondent in this case is a. registered firm engaged in the business of construction. The Income Tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings, rejected the claim on account of investment allowance.3. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, directed the Income Tax Officer to allow the claim. This he did relying upon the two decisions of the Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal, namely, Ranjit Construction Co. [IT Appeal No. 127 (Ahd) of 1984, dated 9-11-1984] and Shah Engg. Co. [IT Appeal No. 870 (Ahd) of 1983, dated 24-1-1984].4. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).5. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appeari...
Kalindi Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN475(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.At the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'2. Heard Mr. R.K. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mrs. Mona Bhatt, the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue.3. While drawing the statement of case, the Tribunal has referred to the earlier years' order of the Tribunal passed in the assessee's own case in Reference Application Nos. 330 to 332 (Ahd) of 1988 dated 18-7-1988, arising out of the Tribunal's order in IT Appeal Nos. 367 to 369 (Ahd) of 1984 for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81. The statement of case drawn in the said reference applications gave rise to Income Tax Reference No. 122 of 1988 and this court has decided the said reference on 11-12-2001. The said reference covers three assessment years and this court after discussing elaborately the necessary facts and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »