Gujarat Court June 1996 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.
Niti Trust and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)273; [1996]221ITR435(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. Petitioners in these petitions challenge the notices under ss. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inter alia, contending that the trust is not an AOP, but is an individual and, therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) has assessed the tax in accordance with law and the issuance of the notices under s. 263 is contrary to the provision of law and not in consonance with the decision rendered by this Court in the case of CIT vs . Deepak Family Trust No. 1 : [1995]211ITR575(Guj) and by the Calcutta High Court in the case of in CIT vs . Shri Krishna Bandar Trust : [1993]201ITR989(Cal) . In all these petitions, there is a common point and at the request of the learned Advocates, we have disposed of these matters by a common judgment. 2. We have taken the facts from Special Civil Appln. No. 829 of 1996 which are as under : Petitioner-assessee is a private discretionary trust. The beneficiaries of the said trust are individuals. For the asst. yr. 1993-...
State of Gujarat Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Guj130
1. As the matter pertained to a learned single Judge, it came to be dealt with by the then the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri B.N. Kirpal on 17-6-1995. It was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that there is difference of opinion among the two learned Judges of the Court on the question involved in the revision. One view is taken by our learned brother B. C. Patel, J. and that has been reported in 1995(l) Guj LH 512 : (AIR 1995 Guj 82). It is a case between State of Gujarat v. State Bank of Saurashtra. Another view is taken by our learned brother Y.B. Bhatt, J. in R.C. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (1) Guj LH 19 (UJ).2. The question relates to a money suit filed by the Bank or a creditor against a debtor for recovery of loan advanced. So far as statutory material is concerned, Section 18 of the Bombay Court-Fees Act, 1959 has to be looked at. It deals with multifarious suits. Where a suit is found to be multifarious, the amount of court-fee chargeable shall be the aggregate ...
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR861(Guj)
ORDER--Order of assessing officer based on law laid down by High Court.Ratio:Merely because revenue is contemplating to file SLP Commissioner cannot refuse to follow decision of court settling the law, therefore, order of assessing officer based on High Court decision was not erroneous and prejudicial, revision under section 263 not justified.Held:Assessing officer had allowed deduction relying on the law laid down by the courts and, therefore, it does not call for interference by CIT. It is not the case that the law laid down is otherwise. Merely because the department is contemplating to file an SLP, the CIT cannot refuse to follow the decision when the court has settled the law in question. It may happen that the decision of an appellate authority or the Tribunal pertaining to an earlier assessment year on a particular point is in favour of the assessee and that is followed in the assessment relating to subsequent assessment year. It may happen that the CIT may consider that such a ...
Bhaijibhai Kalidas (Decd.) Through His Heirs Ranchhodbhai B. Patel Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR533
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Could the petitioners be said to be members of the owner's family so that they can be held to be deemed tenants under Section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Tenancy Act' for short) is the heart and theme of the petition on hand under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. With a view to appreciating the aforesaid important question, a few material relevant facts may be set out at the outset. The agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres-2 gunthas situated in the sim of Dholka was owned by one Bai Pasiben, widow of Naran Mathur, who is hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land'. Owner Pasiben who has now expired was the mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 4. After the death of Pasiben, the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. Dholka had started proceedings under Section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. It may be mentioned that the Mamlatdar and A.L.T., Dholka had started inquiry under Section 32G in the year 1961, but since Bai Pasiben was widow, the right of t...
Sagrambhai Bhayabhai Bharwad Vs. Mukeshkumar Indulal Chauhan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR314
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Rule. Mr. Harin Raval waives service of Rule on respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Harsha Devani, learned A.G.P., waives service of Rule on respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On the request of the learned Counsels for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing today.This Special Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking appropriate writ of directions for quashing and setting aside the election of respondent No. 1-Mukeshkumar Indulal Chauhan as the President of Dhrangadhra Municipality.2. The facts in short are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were elected as Councillors of Dhrangadhra Municipality in the election held in December 1994. A meeting was convened on January 8, 1996 to hold the election for the office of the President of Dhrangadhra Municipality. As per the Roster point provided under the Gujarat Municipalities (Reservations of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class and Women) Rules, 1994, herein...
Ambaben W/O. Pashabhai B. Vankar and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1GLR451
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Deputy Collector at Baroda on 7th December 1985 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Collector of Baroda on 19th June 1986 in Land Appeal No. 1 of 1986 as affirmed in Revision by the order passed by the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department at Ahmedabad on behalf of the State of Gujarat (the respondent herein) on 12th February 1988 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, the Deputy Collector at Baroda confiscated one parcel of land bearing survey No. 136 (Final Plot No. 69) admeasuring 1,411 square meters situated at village Vansa-Saiyed, taluka Vadodara ('the disputed land' for convenience).2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The disputed land was regranted to the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioners ('the deceased for' convenience) by the order passed on 12th/23rd January 1964 by the Assistant Collector at Vadodara. It...
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Guj)405; [1996]222ITR68(Guj)
B.C. Patel, J.1. The petitioner, a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' or 'the assessee'), by filing these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the notice at annexure 'A' dated February 3, 1995, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. In Special Civil Application No. 1190 of 1995 for the assessment year 1993-94, notice vide annexure 'D' dated February 3, 1995, came to be issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act. The notice is issued on identical facts which are referred to in Special Civil Application No. 1189 of 1995. Except the change in figures, we find no changes. At the request of learned counsel, we have heard both the matters together and have disposed of them by a common judgment. 3. The short facts of the case as they emerge from Special Civi...
Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ475Guj
1. Both these Special Civil Applications involve common question of law and hence, they are decided by this common judgment and order. 2. The Special Civil Application No. 8380 of 1989 is directed against the order dated June 27, 1989 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 at Surat in Appeal No. 2 of 1989. 3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent herein was appointed as badli worker on April 1, 1958 with the petitioner-Company, The respondent continued as such until he was made permanent from April 1, 1969. During the period of his working as badli workman from April 1, 1958 to April 1, 1969 he had worked for a period of 240 days in the year 1962 as also in the year 1968. The respondent retired on March 1, 1988 and in March, 1986 while working as a permanent employee his salary had crossed the limit of Rs. 1500/- per month. The petitioner-Company paid the gratuity to the respondent for the period as under about which there is no dispute. For th...
Laxmichand Mafatlal Heruwala Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)3GLR510
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by and on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 28th June 1985 under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief) is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned order, respondent No. 1 set aside the order passed by the Collector of Banaskantha at Palanpur (respondent No. 2 herein) on 2nd February 1985, by which order respondent No. 2 granted to the petitioner one piece of land admeasuring 192.31 square metres (83 ft. x 26 ft. = 2,158 sq.ft.) from Government land bearing Sheet No. 38 (Part) situated at Nava Deesa, taluka Deesa (the disputed land for convenience).2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a Government servant. He applied on 25th May 1983 for grant of a piece of land admeasuring 40 ft. x 26 ft. from Government land bearing Sheet No. 38 situated at Nava Deesa, taluka Deesa as he had no residentia...
Kesarbhai Bhagwanbhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)3GLR2142
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The order passed by the Collector of Junagadh (respondent No. 2 herein) on 16th March 1983 as affirmed in revision by the order passed by the Secretary (Appeals) of the Government of Gujarat (respondent No. 3 herein) on behalf of the State Government (respondent No. 1 herein) on 25th May 1983 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 ordered imposition of penalty of 20 times the N.A. assessment for breach of conditions with respect to allotment of one parcel of Government waste land admeasuring 3 acres situated at Dhanser in Taluka Veraval (the disputed land for convenience).2. The facts giving rise to this move in a narrow compass. The disputed land was granted to the petitioners for seven years by one order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 30th December 1976 for starting khandsari industry therein. It appears that the petitioners applied for a licence in that regard and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »