Gujarat Court August 2006 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Fe ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: [2007]290ITR160(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', in the matter of Income-tax Appeal No. 1290/Ahd/1992 relating to the assessment year 1990-91 has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and in facts in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting additional income-tax of Rs. 22,42,320 leviable under Section 143(1A) of the Act on the ground that there is loss, additional tax cannot be imposed 2. The short facts for disposal of the present reference are that, the assessee 2 filed a return for the current year 1990-91 on October 23, 1990, declaring loss of Rs. 22,92,36,633, the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) and as per the adjustment explanatory sheet, the total income was computed at Rs. 3,58,822 and additional tax was calculated on prima facie additions of Rs. 2,63,24,652. The assessee claimed deduction under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Association of CabIn Holders of Karchelia Vs. State of Gujarat and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR826
R.S. Garg, J.1. Present is a Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an Association of cabin holders filed under the hands of the alleged Honorary Secretary, Pravinbhai Virchandbhai Patel. We do not know whether this Association is a registered Association or not, or whether it is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, or it is a simple group of persons, which has selected one person as an Honorary Secretary to look after their cases and causes. 2. By this Writ Application, the members of the petitioner-Association propose to challenge the notices of eviction issued by the respondent-Authorities of the Road and Building Department of the Government of Gujarat, the action of the authorities in demolishing the constructions raised by the members of the petitioner-Association and the alleged demolition of hutments and eviction of slum dwellers and constitutional validity of Section 202 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2.1 It is submitted by...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: [2007]289ITR250(Guj); (2007)8VST120(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following question for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short];Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 7,38,11,883/- in account of interest on the outstanding sales-tax amount is part of sales-tax and can be disallowed in the course of making 'Prima facie' adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act in view of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. The assessee submitted return of income-tax for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring a 'Nil' income. The said return of income of the assessee was processed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and intimation was sent to the assessee on 11.5.1993 computing total income at Rs. 4,83,10,445/- by making following adjustments in the total income returned by the ass...
Tag this Judgment!General Contracts Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Guj)10
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench `B', at the instance of the Assessee, has made this Reference on the following question for the opinion of this Court in relation to the Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88 relating to the ITA No. 4129 & 4130/Ahd/90:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the I. T. Act amounting to Rs. 7,87,652/- in A.Y. 1986-87 and Rs. 14,37,943/- in A.Y. 1987-88?2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Reference are that the Assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the contract work for Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (G.M.D.C.) at Pandhro and Rajpadhi - Jagadia. The Assessee is engaged in the work of mining and excavation of lignite, including removal of overburden, at Rajpadhi and Pandhro. The Assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 7,87,652=00 in the Assessment Year 1986...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Minalben Rameshbhai Jhaveri L/H of Smt. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Guj)412
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has made the above-mentioned three References. Wealth-Tax Reference No. 112/95 relates to Wealth Tax Appeals no. 520, 522 and 523/Ahd./84 relating to assessment years 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74. W.T.R. No. 117/95 relates to Sales Tax Appeal No. 521/Ahd./84 relating to assessment year 1971-72, while W.T.R. No. 121/94, relates to the Sales Tax Appeals No. 385, 386 and 387/Ahd/90 pertaining to the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. In W.T.R. No. 112/95, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this Court.Whether the appellate Tribunal has been right in law and on facts in holding that the rectification order by the Sales-tax Officer was not justified?In W.T.R. No. 117/95, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court.1. Whether the Tribunal has been right in law and o...
Tag this Judgment!Synbiotics Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR572(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, M/s Synbiotics Limited, Ahmedabad, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench 'C' has made this Reference in relation to Income tax Appeal No.1452/Ahd/1985 relating to assessment year, 1981-82, the following questions for 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 amount of Rs. 28,646/- paid as guarantee commission was on capital account and disallowable as such?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 6976/- in respect of exchange loss was disallowable as capital expenditure?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of assessee for Rs. 1,34,05,048/- was not allowable? 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Reference are that the assessee is a limited company carry...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Construction Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR285(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court in IT Appeal No. 163/Ahd/1990 relating to the asst. yr. 1983-84:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 67,002 under Section 271(1)(c)?2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present reference are that the assessee firm, which is engaged in the activity of construction of work, submitted a return of income, declaring the total income of Rs. 1,27,824 on 30th Oct., 1984. The assessment could not be completed upto October, 1985. The AO issued a notice to show cause to the assessee on 24th Feb., 1986 requiring the assessee to make compliance by 5th March, 1986. The said show-cause notice has been reproduced in verbatim in the assessment order dt. 31st March, 1986, the show-cause notice was also relating to the squared up cash credits, which were liste...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Kuberdas Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR99
J.R. Vora, J.1. The instant Appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and is directed against the judgment and order delivered on 30th of September, 1991, in Special Case No. 5 of 1988 of the Court of learned Special Judge, District - Panchmahals at Godhra. The present appellant being accused of said Special Case No. 5 of 1988, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(d) to read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 and also for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned Special Judge was pleased to sentence the present appellant to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) to read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, while no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rama Multi-tech Ltd. and anr. Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company ( ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1230
Akil Kureshi, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged a notice dated 25-1-2006 issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'). The petitioners have also challenged a communication dated 15-5-2006 by which the respondent-Company disposed of the objections of the petitioners to the notice dated 25-1-2006 under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002.2. Short facts leading to the present petition are as follows:2.1 The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the provision of the Companies Act. The petitioner No. 2 is a whole time Director of petitioner No. 1-Company. The respondent is also a Company registered under the Companies Act.2.2 The respondent-Company is a Securitisation and Reconstruction Company registered with Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of the Act of 2002.2.3 It is not in dispute that the respondent-Company acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Statronics and Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR455(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', at the instance of the Revenue, has made this reference on the following questions for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the investment allowance and additional depreciation is allowable on computers ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that data processing and printout would certainly be a thing produced by the assessee even if not a thing manufactured by the assessee and thereby the assessee-company is entitled to deduction under Section 32A ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the computer machinery installed by the assessee-company are plant and machinery as a natural corollary and thereby the additional depreciation is entitled to the assessee ?2. The assessee is a private limited company ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »