Gujarat Court September 1995 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.
Alessandro Constantini Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. (Cit V. Alessan ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Guj)199
RAJESH BALIA, J. :Two separate statements of cases have been submitted and the questions of law referred to this Court for decision by the Tribunal being from the very same order passed in Appeal No. 834/Ahd/80 for the asst. yr. 1976-77, we propose to decide these reference applications together by this common order.2. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that Mr. Alessandro Constantini, the assessee, is a non-resident assessee. M/s Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as the Indian company) was assessed as employer of the assessee on the strength of a general power of attorney held by it. The assessee was working with Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company between 27th Nov., 1975 and 16th June, 1976. The Air Control & Chemical Engineering Company had a collaboration agreement with M/s Italviscosa Eastern Trading of Milan. (hereinafter called as the collaborator company) The assessee was an employee of the collaborator company and was sent to India ...
Jitesh Trading Co. Vs. Gita Fabrics P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas453(Guj)
S.M. Soni, J.1. This petition is filed under the Contempt of Courts Act to take necessary action against the respondents, as they have not honoured the promise and undertaking given by them in Company Petition No. 152 of 1985. The promise is as per the consent terms. The undertaking is given by one J. P. Patel and P. J. Patel to the effect that in case the company fails to pay the amount agreed as per the consent terms, they agree to make them personally liable to pay the same. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the promise and undertaking, they were made to withdraw Company Petition No. 152 of 1985 with a liberty to revive and that the respondents by not complying with the consent terms and the undertaking, have committed wilful breach of the same. It is, therefore, prayed for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. If one reads the consent terms, it is clear that the company has agreed to pay the principal amount by way of 12 monthly instalments. By undertaki...
Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Guj)529; [1996]219ITR146(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. On 23rd Feb., 1995 the petitioner and respondents No. s 4 to 26 entered into an agreement for purchase of the property in question for a consideration of Rs. 25,51,700, the total area being 1607.20 sq. mts. On 29th Feb., 1995 Form 37-I was submitted before Appropriate Authority. On 17th May, 1995 notice under s. 269UD(1A) was issued to the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 to 26. After the petitioner submitted reply to the notice the order under s. 269UD(1) for purchasing the property for Central Government was passed on 30th May, 1995; notice for taking possession was issued. The order of 30th May, 1995 has been challenged in this petition by the purchaser of the said property. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that on their own showing in the notice as well as in the order, the consideration under the agreement has not been shown to be significantly undervalued by more than 15% of its fair market value to take proceedings under s. 269UD and to raise...
Krishnakumar Agarwal and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR274(Guj)
ORDER UNDER S. 269UD--Necessity of speaking order.Ratio :Since valuation made by the DVO was in confirmity of the sale consideration shown in agreement for sale, non-mentioning of reasons by the Appropriate Authority for differing therefrom and non-mentioning of intention to avoid tax, make the purchase order invalid.Held :In order to arrive at the finding of fair market price of the property in question, the matter was referred to by the Appropriate Authority to the department's own valuer and according to the valuer's, report, the very premise of raising presumption of evasion was not there inasmuch as according to undisputed pleadings, the apparent consideration disclosed in the agreement was equal to fair market value of the property under consideration itself having been determined, what weighed with the Appropriate Authority to discard the fair market value of the property under consideration and to fall back on the consideration of sale instance property (SIP) and to substitute ...
Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Assistant Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR194(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By notice dt. 23rd Feb., 1995, the Assessing Officer (AO) of the petitioner required the petitioner to furnish the return of the asst. yr. 1991-92 under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The reason for issuing notice under s. 148 was disclosed in the notice itself which read as under : 'Deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 1.26 crores was wrongly allowed, in view of the provisions of s. 80AB as net result of the bank interest and commission is an expenditure of Rs. 2.77 crores. Thus, there is no income from interest from bank is included in the total income. Further, it is mentioned that interest from bank is an interest on current account and not on investment.' It is this notice which is the subject matter of this petition. 2. The petitioner contends that the facts and circumstances of the present case discloses that notice has been issued by the AO without application of mind to the facts before him for arriving at a satisfaction to have reason to believe that income cha...
Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Assistant Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Guj)228
RAJESH BALIA, J. :By notice dt. 23rd Feb., 1995, the Assessing Officer (AO) of the petitioner required the petitioner to furnish the return of the asst. yr. 1991-92 under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The reason for issuing notice under s. 148 was disclosed in the notice itself which read as under :'Deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 1.26 crores was wrongly allowed, in view of the provisions of s. 80AB as net result of the bank interest and commission is an expenditure of Rs. 2.77 crores. Thus, there is no income from interest from bank is included in the total income. Further, it is mentioned that interest from bank is an interest on current account and not on investment.'It is this notice which is the subject matter of this petition.2. The petitioner contends that the facts and circumstances of the present case discloses that notice has been issued by the AO without application of mind to the facts before him for arriving at a satisfaction to have reason to believe that income chargea...
Narayan Tukaram Baddi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR31
S.D. Shah, J.1. Petitioner-one Naranbhai Tukaram Baddi has by this petition challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention, dated 16th May, 1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The grounds of detention duly formulated under Section 8(1) are supplied to the detenu wherein the satisfaction is recorded that for maintenance of supplies and distribution of essential commodity like petrol, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the said avowed object the order of detention is required to be passed.2. In the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu it is stated that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community such as petrol and with a view to maintaining its easy ...
Jawahar Karunashanker Adhararyu and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)1GLR747
D.G. Karia, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, question relating to sanction for prosecuting the petitioner-officials of the Gujarat Electricity Board under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is involved, on the following facts and circumstances:2. Criminal Case No. 703 of 1982 was filed by the second respondent, Parmar Jayantibhai Tapubhai, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rajula against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 352, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the petitioners had come for meter-checking and its reading at his factory. The petitioners assaulted and used criminal force on the complainant otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation and thereby committed offence Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent No. 2-complainant also alleged that the petitioners intentionally insulted and abused the complainant, as he requested to remove the electric...
Shri Dahyabhai Kalubhai Solanki Vs. N.J. Industries and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2787; (1996)1GLR768
D.G. Karia, J.1 Gujarat Pollution Control Board, through its Law Officer, has filed both these appeals against the order of acquittal for the offence under Section 39 read with Section 40 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. 1981 (for short, 'the Air Act. 1981).2. It was alleged against the respondent accused persons that they did not provide port holes, platforms conveniently located for easy access to port holes and all other necessary facilities for taking samples or emission from chimney in the industrial units of the respondents-accused and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 39 read with Section 40 of the Air Act, 1981. The complaint is lodged against the accused persons on basis of the default data-sheet at Exh. 5 and on basis of the authority of lodging the complaint as per the resolution at Exh. 6. On inspection of the factory units of the respondents the aforesaid drawbacks were noticed and report was accordingly prepared. It is stated in the ...
Chetnaben @ Artiben Vithal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)2GLR633
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Unmarried Chetnaben @ Artiben, by this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has moved this Court, inter alia praying for issuance of the writ of Habeas Carpus in particular against the respondent No. 3 Mistry Ganpatbhai bakshiram who happens to be her father directing him to produce before this Court her minor son Ravi (seven months old) born out of extra-marital relationship with one Vithal and hand over his possession to her.2. On going through the petition, in substance the petitioner has narrated her history with regard to her coming into contact with one Vithalbhai Panchal; who though married was deserted by his wife, and about her subsequent companionship with him and out of the said relationship giving birth to illegitimate son Ravi on 29-1-1995 at Ahmedabad. In the petition, his has also further narrated about the harassment meted out to her and her companion Vithal by the respondent No. 3 and how ultimately after the birth of Ravi forcibly ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »