Gujarat Court November 2014 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. City Gold Entertainment (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-28-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) dated 30.03.2005 in ITA Nos. 3745/Ahd/2004, 3746/Ahd/2004 and 3747/Ahd/2004 for the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals. 2. These appeals were admitted on 07.09.2006 for consideration of the following substantial question of law: "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cinecasting/distribution of movies would be outside the purview of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiring tax deduction at source?" 3. The assessee firm which runs a multiplex theatre had an agreement with the distributor of certain movies for exhibiting films in the theatre owned by it. The distributor was to get part of the amount collected by the respondent by way of sale of tickets for these movies. The Assessing Officer observed that the...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Sumit Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
K.J. Thaker, J. 1. The Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.1892/Ahd/2001. 2. The Tax Appeal No.677 of 2001 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.88/Ahd/2001. 3. The facts of both the appeals are identical Therefore, both these appeals are taken up for hearing and decided together as common questions of law are raised. The respondent though served, has chosen not to appear. 4. As the question of law as well as the facts of both these appeals are same, we discuss facts as emerging in Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006. The assessee filed its return on 31.07.1998, declaring total income of Rs.54,15,971/- for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The assessments were taken under scrutiny and the Assessment Officer vide its order, determined the total income of ass...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Nangalia Impex
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-revenue, challenging the order of the learned ITAT (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Dated 22.11.2013, rendered in ITA No. 745/Ahd/2013, whereby, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of export of silk. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 on 31.12.2004 showing total loss at Rs.16,760/-. The case of the assessee came to be selected for scrutiny and its total income came to be assessed at Rs.57,85,560/-. Being aggrieved thereby, the assessee approached the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence, the Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal, raising the following questions for our consideration; "[A] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in upholdin...
Tag this Judgment!Income-tax Officer Vs. Parikh Transport Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 23.01.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short "the Tribunal"] in ITA No. 6030/Ahd/1994, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The short facts of this case are that on 13.10.1969, the respondent-assessee had purchased one immovable property in the form of a godown at Bombay for an amount of Rs.1,22,767/-. Depreciation on this property was claimed upto Assessment Year 1984-85. Thereafter, with effect from Assessment Year 1985-86 onwards the assessee neither claimed any depreciation nor any such claim was allowed by the revenue in respect of the said property. The contention of the assessee was that the said property had not been used for the purpose of business with effect from Assessment Year 1985-86 and therefore, the provisions of Section 50 would not be applicable since the property was not included in the block of assets. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. United Phosphorus Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Draft amendment dated 24 -11 -2014 is allowed. In the amended form, the question of law presented for our consideration by the Revenue in this appeal is as under: "2(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that Modvat Credit is available to the respondent on capital goods viz. Pipes, cables, valve, cooling tower, etc. used in the erection of power plant for generation of electricity by relying upon decision rendered by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Kothari Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. reported in : 2006 (196) E.L.T. 35(T) which has not attained finality and CMA No. 2671/2007 filed against the said decision is admitted and pending for final decision before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Chennai - 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and having perused the impugned decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, it emerges that the sole issue in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mastek Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.07.2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in ITA No. 405/Ahd/1999 and 61/Ahd/1999 for assessment year 1995-96. 2. While admitting these appeals on 22.11.2000, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the activities carried out by the assessee constituted research activity in terms of section 43(4) and therefore the assessee was entitled to deduction of expenditure incurred, capital as well as revenue, Pune centre under section 35(1) (B) Whether before permitting deduction under section 35(1) of the Act to the assessee, the Tribunal ought to have obtained the opinion of the Central Board of Direct Taxes on the question whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on its project at Pune was for research activities?" 3. The facts of the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Estate Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 21.07.2005 in ITA No. 209/Ahd/1998 for the Assessment Year 1994-95 respectively, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the following substantial question of law which were framed while admitting the matters: "(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income from letting out of warehouses/godowns together with various services rendered to the occupant did not constitute a business activity of the appellant and as such the income arising therefrom was not assessable under sec. 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as business income? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not have arrived at conclusion that the income from letting out of the wareho...
Tag this Judgment!Torrent Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Asses ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-assessee has challenged the order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short "the ITAT"] in ITA No.1191/Ahd/96. 2. While admitting this appeal, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that while computing long term capital gains, deductions under Sections 48(2) are required to be allowed before applying the provisions of Sections 54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (sic)" 3. The facts in brief are that on 31.12.1992 the assessee had filed its return of income, declaring total income of Rs.1,08,97,673/- for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer passed order under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeal). The CIT(A) vide 10.1.1996 partly allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manjulaben M. Unadkat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (for short "the ITAT") in ITA No.551(RJT.)/2002. 2. While admitting this appeal on 09.09.2003, the Court had formulated the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Assessing Officer ought not to have made reference to the departmental valuation officer for determination of fair market value of the proper under Section 55-A (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee-respondent herein was the owner of the property situated at plot No.9, Shakti Housing Society, Vidyanagar, Bhavnagar. It was acquired by the assessee on 01.04.1981. The value of the property at that time was taken at Rs.3,91,000/-. The assessee sold this property on 12.10.1994 for Rs.9,51,000/-. At the time of disposal, Tax Clearance Cer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Link Enterprise
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-2014
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. The department has preferred these appeals challenging a common judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal', for short) dated 22 -4 -2013 : (2013 (293) E.L.T. 746 (Tri. - Ahmd.)). The respondent had made several refund claims of special additional duty paid by them on the ground that the same was refundable upon production of proof of ultimate purchaser having paid Value Added Tax. Such refund applications were processed by the Assistant Commissioner, and to that extent, found payable, was ordered to be refunded. The department challenged such order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner reversed the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, upon which, the aggrieved assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal. One of the main grounds pressed by the Revenue in this group of appeals is that the Assistant Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to entertain the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »