Gujarat Court July 2006 Judgments
Gujarat Fertilisers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Guj)594; [2007]293ITR70(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mr. S.N. Divetia, learned Counsel for the assessee, and Mrs. Mona M. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Revenue, are heard.2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following questions to this Court for our opinion:1. Whether, on facts and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action under Section 147(a) of the IT Act?2. Whether, on facts and in law, the Tribunal was right in treating the said cash credits as not genuine and sustaining the addition made of Rs. 66,475?2.1. We will take up the second question first as it was vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee that the findings regarding the cash credit entries that those were not genuine, are perverse findings. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the basic burden to prove the source of money would be on the assessee, but, he is not required to prove the sources of the source and as the taxing authorities and the Tribunal made an inquiry into the sour...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Baroda ChaIn Works
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR176(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Smt. Mona Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar learned counsel for' the assessee.2. The following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) decision that the value of gold ornaments of Rs. 1,20,000 which was not accounted for in the books of account of the assessee was assessable in the assessment year 1988-89 instead of the assessment year 1987-88 3. learned counsel for the revenue submits that, from the facts it would clearly appear that on a raid made in the business premises of the firm certain incriminating articles were found the value of which was to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000 and as this amount/bullion was not recorded in the account books the same should have been deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Referring to Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, she submits t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandra Charitable Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2007]294ITR86(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mrs. Mona Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned Counsel for the assessee.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion:(1) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee-trust is a religious trust entitled to the benefit of Section 11?(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that Jainism is not a religion, and if Jainism is not a religion, the bar contained under Section 13(1)(b) would not apply in the present case?(3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts of the case in holding that the fresh assessment made by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the order under Section 263 made by the Commissioner of Income-tax is redundant?2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that Section 11 and Section 12 of the Income-tax Act while providing certain exemption to charitable religious trusts, Section 13(1)(b), c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Guj)439
1. The following question is proposed for admission of this appeal:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Gujarat Maritime Board fulfills the conditions as envisaged in Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which are necessary for its registration under Section 12A of the said Act2. The short controversy involved in this appeal is whether the Gujarat Maritime Board is a charitable trust/institution or not, for the purpose of Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal as under:4. We have considered the rival submissions with reference to each and every ground given by the Commissioner of Income-tax for refusing the registration of the assessee under Section 12A of the Act. Our finding in this regard is as under:(i) The first ground given by the Commissioner of Income-tax for refusing the registration of the assessee is that the assessee cannot be considered to b...
Tag this Judgment!Btx Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Guj)252; [2007]288ITR196(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. This Income-tax Reference is arising out of the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.9.1990 in R.A. No. 413/Ahd/1989 and R.A. No. 443/Ahd/1989, both for assessment year 1980-81. R.A. No. 413/Ahd/1989 is filed by the assessee and at the instance of the assessee, the tribunal has referred to the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 to the extent of the claim relatable to an amount of Rs. 1,83,492/-2. R.A. No. 443/Ahd/1989 is filed by the Revenue and at the instance of the Revenue, following question of law is referred to for the opinion of this Court. (a) Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty referable to income of Rs. 1,00,112/-The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:3. The assessee is a private ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Abdulgafur A. Mistry
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR515(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned senior counsel, who was earlier representing the interest of the assessee, had informed on 24-7-2006, that he would not be appearing in the matter. The assessee Mr. Abdulgafur A. Mistry had acknowledged the fact that Mr. Soparkar would not be appearing and that the court be requested to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.2. The letter of Mr. Soparkar along with the letter of Mr. Abdulgafur Mistry the assessee are placed on the records. We proceed to decide the matter.3. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion : Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Incorhe-tax Officer to tax the income of the estate in the hands of the assessee rather than to tax it in the hands of the beneficiaries or in the hands of the beneficiaries' father under Section 64(l)(iii) of the Act ?4. From the facts, it appears that the matter relates to the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra B. Mehta Vs. the Manager and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR183]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. By order dated 20.6.2006, this petition was disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty in favour of petitioner to approach the concerned labour court. However, pursuant to order passed by this Court today in MCA NO. 1937 of 2006, said order of this Court dated 20.6.2006 was recalled and this petition was restored on the files of this Court and was argued by the learned advocates for the parties today itself.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Desai for petitioner and Mr. Clerk for respondent. Petitioner has challenged two orders passed by the labour court/industrial court. Labour court has decided T Application No. 103 of 1995 dated 18.2.2005. Labour Court Ahmedabad has rejected application. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by petitioner before the industrial court being Appeal (IC) NO. 20 of 2005 and it was then dismissed by the Industrial Court on 28.11.2005. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai submitted that under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, labour cour...
Tag this Judgment!Jindarsing Bahra and anr. Vs. Cargo Motors Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR190]
H.K. Rathod, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for petitioners in these two petitions. Through these petitions, petitioners have challenged the common award passed by Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference Nos. 591 and 592, 593 of 1992 dated 4th March, 2005 wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement without back wages for intervening period. Petitioners herein are workmen concerned in Reference (LCJ) Nos. 593 and 592 of 1992 respectively. They are challenging the aforesaid award insofar as it relates to refusal of back wages alone.2. While making his submissions on behalf of the petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Rachh has placed reliance upon the evidence of one workman vide Exh. 61 which is at page 59 Annexure-D, deposition given by one Ghanshyambhai Jivrajbhai Rathod. Learned Advocate Mr. Rachh submitted that the Labour Court has relied upon the evidence of one witness for workman at Exh. 61 for adjudicating the reference, but has not relied upon the evidence of s...
Tag this Judgment!Kheda District Panchayat Vs. Jashubhai Devabhai Gohel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1061]
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pradeep J. Patel for petitioner and Mr. Ashish H. Shah for respondent Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Kheda District Panchayat has challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference No. 385 of 1986 dated 21.9.1998 wherein the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 25 percent of back wages for intervening period with effect from 16.1.1986.2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Patel before this Court that the workman has been reinstated in service with effect from 24.12.2004 and presently, he is working with the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Shah that this petition was dismissed for default by this Court on 28.6.1999 and thereafter, respondent filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1686 of 2002 wherein order was passed by this Court on 6.5.2003. Thereafter, present petition was restored by this Court on 6.5.2003.3....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dilherkunverba C. Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: [2007]287ITR485(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Smt. Mauna R. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Revenue. The office report shows that the assessee was served, however, nobody appears for the assessee.2. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions to this Court for its answer. W.T.R. No. 80/95:1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the Bombay property did not belong to the assessee till the estate is administered and the asset is allocated, handed over to the beneficiary under the Will and hence the value of the immovable property could not be included in the total wealth of the assessee.2. Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that life interest of the assessee in Hajoor Palace was eligible for exemption under Section 5[1][iv]W.T.R. No. 119/95:1.Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the Bombay property did not belong to the assessee till the estate hande...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »