Gujarat Court April 1999 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.
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ880; (1999)3GLR31
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Admit. Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Upon the joint request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. In this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against the judgment and order, dated 1.8.1996, recorded by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Claim Application No. 77 of 1990, the only, short, question which has been raised for our examination and adjudication is as to whether the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, deciding preliminary issue on question of bar of the provisions of Section 78B, is justified?3. Firstly, it is an admitted fact that the appellant/ original applicant before the Tribunal had made a demand and intimation by writing a letter dated 7.5.1987, produced at Annexure A, whereby, the appellant informed the respondents/railway authority about the coal supply Movement of November 1986 - Charged by high rate of railway freight - ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Krishnakant R. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR367(Guj)
BY THE COURT : 1. At the instance of the CED, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, the statement of the case has been submitted and following questions of law have been referred to this Court for its opinion in connection with the estate duty proceedings arising on account of death of Manhargauri Rasiklal Shah who expired on 6th October, 1976 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that as there was a clause in the partnership deed of the firm M/s Hiralal Bhikhabhai & Co., stating that partners would not be having any share in the goodwill of the firm, on the death of deceased the goodwill was not liable to be included in the principal value of estate 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the deceased had retired from the firm (though within two years) the goodwill would not be chargeable under s. 9 of the ED Act, 1953 ?' 2. The deceased wa...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ramkrupal Jagannath
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1651Guj
1. All these petitions were admitted by us on October 8, 1998. On that day, Rule was issued and ad interim relief against implementation of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal was granted. Notice as to interim relief was made returnable on December 1, 1998. The matter was, thereafter, adjourned from time to time.2. Today, we have heard Mr. J. C. Sheth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents. As ad interim relief was granted and the said relief was against the order of reinstatement, in the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties, we have heard the main matters.3. All these petitions were filed against orders in O.A. No. 69 of 1993 and companion matters passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('CAT' for short) on July 16, 1998. Various applications came to be filed for getting reinstatement. All of them were disposed by a common order. It was the case of the authorities that t...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ramkrupal Jagannath
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)4GLR345
1. All these petitioners were admitted by us on 8th October, 1998. On that day, Rule was issued and ad-interim relief against implementation of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal was granted. Notice as to interim relief was made returnable on 1st December, 1998. The matter was, thereafter, adjourned from time to time.2. Today, we have heard Mr. J.C. Sheth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Shah, learned counsel for the respondents. As ad-interim relief was granted and the said relief was against the order of reinstatement, in the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties, we have heard the main matters.3. All these petitions were filed against orders in O.A. No.69 of 1993 and companion matters passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ('CAT' for short) on 16th July, 1998. Various applications came to be filed for getting reinstatement. All of them were disposed by a common order. It was the case of the authorities t...
A.K. Patel, Pi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)1GLR199
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of compulsory retirement at Annexure A dated 19.12.1986 passed by the Director General of Police. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the impugned order is passed by invoking the provisions of Rule 161(1)(aa)(i) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules.2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner against the order of his premature retirement, it is necessary to briefly refer to his service record.3. The petitioner joined the services of Police Department as Police Constable in the year 1951 and was promoted as Head Constable within four months. The petitioner was promoted as Police Sub Inspector in the year 1962 and was further promoted as Police Inspector on 6.6.1974. It is averred by the petitioner that in his entire service career, barring one incident, there are no adverse remarks communicated to him with regard to his integrity; that the adverse remarks have been communicated to him by the D...
Avani Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR407(Guj)
ORDERBY THE COURT : 1. The petitioner-assessee challenges the notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 27th June, 1993, for reopening of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1987-88. Reasons that were recorded before assuming jurisdiction for issuing notice under s. 148 were furnished to the assessee and were produced as Annexure K. The reasons recorded by the AO reads as under : 'From the records it is seen that you have sold land for a sum of Rs. 8,69,755. The said land was purchased by you for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. As against this, you have paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 to the seller of the land. Furthermore, you have paid a sum of Rs. 75,000 to a third party which was not required to be paid. Under these circumstances, there is escapement of income chargeable to tax.' 2. The assessee urges that assumption of jurisdiction under s. 148 r/w s. 147 was without authority of law. It was pointed out that there has been no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for ...
Shree Tharad JaIn Yuvak Mandal and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Guj)462; [2000]242ITR612(Guj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a trust assessed to income-tax in the status of an AOP. The petitioner filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1985-86, declaring gross total income of Rs. 2,52,826 and deducting therefrom a sum of Rs. 1,50,785 being a expenses incurred on the objects of the trust as well as of capital nature. Out of remaining balance of Rs. 1,02,041, the petitioner had transferred an amount of Rs. 90,000 to Upashraya Bhavan Fund Account which was an earmarked fund and claimed the said amount as exempt from income-tax under s. 11(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The claim of the assessee was allowed. It appears that thereafter objection was raised by the audit informing the Department that the trust has not obtained permission of the AO under s. 11(3A) of the Act and as such, exemption under s. 12 should not have been allowed. The period for taking remedial action, on receiving audit objection, under s. 263, had exp...
Harishchandra Amarsinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3874; (2000)4GLR225
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. These two writ petitions involving common questions of law and almost identical questions of fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common order.2. The two petitioners in two petitions are real brothers. An order for their detention was passed by the detaining Authority under the provision of Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA'). The said order could not be served on the petitioners till date. The period of five years has elapsed. Now the petitioners chose to file these writ petitions in the year 1998 challenging the aforesaid order with prayers that the said order be quashed and the respondents be restrained permanently from executing the order passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners.3. Brief facts essential for disposal of these two petitions are as under :On 14.2.1993 on the basis of specific intelligence information given by the Police of Bhuj-Kutch District that two trucks beari...
Bharatiben Jayantibhai Thakkar Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR399(Guj)
ORDERBY THE COURT :1. Rule. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the attachment of her property for recovering the dues of the firm M/s Komal Tea Co. of which she is not a partner. Her husband is a partner in Komal Tea Co. and the property which is attached is acquired by the petitioner from her own resources, by disposing of other properties owned by her and which has already been subjected to tax as her property in the past. Notwithstanding pointing out these facts to the AO he instead of deciding the objection against the attachment of the property has directed the Recovery Officer to recover the dues of the firm in respect of which at best her husband can be made liable and for which property of her husband can be attached, by proceeding against the property of the petitioner. 2. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner has no ostensible source of income from which the property could have been acquired by her and, therefore, th...
Hargovind Damaji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR229(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the applicant assessee, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred to this Court the following question of law arising out of its order passed in ITA No. 663/Ahd./1981, dt. 24th March, 1984, for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the ITO is barred by limitation ?' 2. Learned counsel Shri B. B. Naik has appeared for the Revenue whereas nobody has appeared for the applicant-assessee. 3. For the asst. yr. 1973-74 the assessee had filed his return on 14th August, 1973. As a matter of fact, he was expected to file his return before 30th June, 1973, as his accounting year was ending on 31st March, 1973. Before 30th June, 1973, on 20th June, 1973, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a circular being Circular No. 113 granting extension of time for furnishing returns of income and net wealth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »