Gujarat Court February 2009 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. Suman Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)781; [2009]314ITR119(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred only the following question at the instance of applicant-Revenue, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), though the applicant-revenue had suggested as many as eight questions:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and proper interpretation of provisions of Section 158BB and Part-II, Part-III of the Form No. 28 for Block Assessment, the I.T.A.T. was justified in law in holding that the assessee is eligible to deduction Under Section 80I or 80IA with reference to 'total undisclosed income' of the Block period?2. The controversy relates to block period commencing from Assessment Year 1986-87 and ending on 06.01.1996. The respondent-assessee, a Limited Company, claimed deduction under Sections 80I or 80IA of the Act in relation to the 'total undisclosed income' of the block period. The said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the matter carried before Tribuna...
Cit Vs. Peter Max Washylik
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)85
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of Revenue:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order holding that the relief under the agreement for the avoidance of double taxation of income was available to the assessee and the assessee's income was not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in India?2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-revenue has invited attention to order dated 15.06.2007 made by this Court in case of C.I.T. v. Heinrich Wetting, Income Tax Reference No. 77 of 1999, to submit that the present reference may be decided on the same lines and the matter be sent back for deciding afresh as done in the case of C.I.T. v. Heinrich Wetting (supra).3. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent-asses...
C.i.T. Vs. NitIn Shantilal Parikh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR437(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred following question under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in observing that the conditions prescribed under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not satisfied in the instant case and thereby deleting the addition made by that AO treating the benefits taken from the company as deemed dividend2. The assessment is in relation to block period commencing from 01.04.1985 and ending on 15.11.1995. The Assessing Officer made addition to the tune of Rs. 1,55,68,150/- by invoking provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. When the matter was carried before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said provision requires establishment of either of the two facts : (i) the payment from the Company has to be by way of advance or loan, or (ii) the payment is made...
In Re: Rajeev S. Mardia and Rasik S. Mardia Vs.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-2009
Reported in: [2010]153CompCas306(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. All these three petitions are filed seeking sanction of this Court to the scheme of arrangement at annexure C to each of the petitions. Company Petition No. 275 of 2008 filed by the ex-promoter of Mardia Steel Ltd. (in liquidation) seeking sanction of the scheme so as to be binding on all the unsecured creditors, equity shareholders and secured creditors of the company and Mardia Steel Ltd. (in liquidation).2. The petitioners of Company Petitions Nos. 276 and 277 of 2008 are Atithi Dwelling P. Ltd. and Karnavati Dwelling P. Ltd., the wholly owned subsidiary companies to whom the assets of Mardia Steel Ltd. (in liquidation) are sought to be transferred. They are, therefore, virtually the transferee companies.3. Before the court proceeds to consider the issue regarding sanction of the scheme, it is necessary to have a close look at the historical background of the company in liquidation.4. The company was established in the year 1974 at Vatva, Ahmedabad and it started its ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›