Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-13-1993
Reported in : [1994]208ITR14(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. All these three references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. As the questions are, in substance, the same they are disposed of by this common judgment. However, in order to avoid any confusion, we set out the questions referred in each of these references respectively. 2. Income-tax Reference No. 445 of 1980 : '1. Whether the amount of Rs. 26,221 being 1/3rd of the sum of Rs. 78,663 paid to the Life Insurance Corporation by Sarangpur Mills for purchase of deferred annuity policy is includible in the hands of the assessee as income chargeable under the head 'Salaries'? 2. Whether, on the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 26,221 utilised by Sarangpur Mills towards purchase of single premium for obtaining the deferred annuity policy did not form part of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-20-1993
Reported in : [1994]208ITR194(Guj)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that as the bonus shares in question were acquired after January 1, 1954, the assessee could not be allowed the option of substitution of the market value as on January 1, 1954, in regard to the bonus shares 2. Whether the amount of Rs. 26,221 being 1/3rd of the sum of Rs. 78,663 paid to the Life Insurance Corporation of India by Sarangpur Mills for purchase of deferred annuity policy is includible in the hands of the assessee as income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' 3. Whether, on the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 26,221 utilised by Sarangpur Mills towards purchase of single premium...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-17-1993
Reported in : (1994)2GLR1073; (1994)ILLJ655Guj
Panchal, J. 1. Whether provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to an application filed under S. 79(1) read with Sub-sec 3(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act') for deciding dispute regarding propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer acting or purporting to act under the Standing Orders as postulated by Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of para A of Sub-section (1) of S. 78 of the Act before the Labour Court constituted under S. 9 of the Act is the question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition may now be stated : The petitioner is a Cotton Textile Industry and is governed by the provisions of the Act. The respondent-workman was working as a permanent Patiwala in Mechanic Department of the petitioner - undertaking since December 1, 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-workman reported f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-26-1993
Reported in : II(1993)ACC479; 1993ACJ673; AIR1993Guj171; (1993)1GLR779
M.B. Shah, J. I. BRIEF FACTS:1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baroda, has awarded compensation amount of Rs. 53,400 / by judgment and order dated April 3, 1978 to the heirs of the deceased, Sultan Singh, who expired on January 8, 1976. That order is challenged by the Insurance Company by filing this First Appeal. The Insurance Company contended that, when a person is travelling by a 'goods vehicle' even by paying fare, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured or, in any case, its liability under the statutory insurance coverage is limited. The entire matter is referred to Larger Bench by the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the learned advocates for the parties. Before referring the entire matter for decision to the Larger Bench, the Division Bench of this Court has suggested the following questions, which are required to be determined by this Court.(i) What would be the extent of liability of the Insurer under Section 95(2) in respect of death of or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-26-1993
Reported in : (1994)1GLR296
S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.1. In this Reference, the question that engages our attention and calls for an answer at our hands is as to whether the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', has got the power to condone the delay in preferring an application asking for reference to Court. Section 18 of the Act, in its entirety, reads as follows:18. Reference to Court:(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:Provided that every such application shall be made;-(a) If the person making it was pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-19-1993
Reported in : (1994)116CTR(Guj)82
..... tax act, 1961, in the context of the fact that the assessee-company had paid a sum of rs. 53,749 to the life insurance corporation of india for the purchase of deferred annuity policies upon the lives of its directors. in that context, the tribunal held that the directors had no present right to the said sum and that it did not represent a present benefit or amenity to them, it being receivable only upon the termination of their services. therefore, the provisions of section 40a(5) were not applicable. the ..... due are brought in for income-tax assessment, so also liabilities accrued due would be taken into account while working out the profits and gains of the business.' 27. the definition of the word 'paid' given in section 43(2) of the act incorporates the aforesaid principle. it is as under : ''paid' means actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession ..... . the said agreement, inter alia, provided that the sum voted by the company for payment of gratuities and/or as compensation for loss of employment to existing directors and employees of the company with respect to their services up to and inclusive of march 31, 1956, and a further amount of rs. 16,188 payable to the managing director should be paid in accordance with the resolution by the company and the amount so paid should be deducted from the purchase price of rs. 155 lakhs agreed upon. on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-10-1993
Reported in : 1994ACJ740; (1994)1GLR269
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ('insurance company' for short) against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, on March 14, 1983, in M.A.C. Application No. 257 of 1980.2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:The claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed the above claim petition before the Claims Tribunal to recover an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, inter alia, stating that the deceased Purshottam was the husband of claimant No. 1, son of claimant No. 2 and father of claimant Nos. 3 and 4. He was serving as a conductor in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and was residing at village Chandrala. At the relevant time, he was attached to S.T. Depot, Dehgam. It was the case of the claimants that on March 2, 1980, deceased Purshottam was waiting at S.T. bus stop at village Chandrala to go to Dehgam for duty. He was waiting for a bus to come so that he could reach Dehgam. Mea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-10-1993
Reported in : II(1994)ACC582
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. As both these appeals raise identical and common questions arising out of common judgment and award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short), they are being disposed of jointly, by this common judgment.2. In first Appeal No. 1311 of 1991, the appellants, who are the original opponents, have questioned the legality and validity of the award of Rs. 9,94,040, whereas the appellant in First Appeal No. 1542 of 1991 has invoked the powers of this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation for the personal injuries, arising out of a road accident. Thus, the appellants in both the appeals have challenged the award and judgment passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 912 of 1986, decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad ('the Tribunal' for short), on 25.6.1991, whereby, the original claimant/appellant in First Appeal No. 1542 of 1991 is awarded an amount of Rs. 9,94,040 with running interest at the rate of 12% per annum from ...
Tag this Judgment!