Skip to content

Gujarat Court August 2000 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.

Aug 01 2000

Amrabhai Ranchhodbhai Bharwad Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-01-2000

Reported in: (2001)2GLR1439

J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence order, recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1988, whereby the appellant came to be held guilty under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 and sentenced to undergo minimum imprisonment of 10 years and to pay minimum fine of Rs. 1 lac, and in default, rigorous imprisonment for two years, and also came to be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, and to pay fine of Rs. 200, and in default, simple imprisonment for one month, by filing this Appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Code).2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-original accused has raised the following contentions before us :(i) that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, examination and analysis produced at Ex...


Aug 01 2000

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Exhibitors

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-01-2000

Reported in: [2001]251ITR767(Guj)

A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer not having mentioned in the draft order submitted to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act about charging of interest under Sections 139(8) and 217(1A), no order for levy of the said interest could have been made in the final order passed thereafter with the prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer not having mentioned in the draft order submitted to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B of the Act ab...


Aug 01 2000

Cit Vs. Maharaja Exhibitors

Court: Gujarat

Decided on: Aug-01-2000

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Guj)107

A.R. Dave, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income Tax Officer not having mentioned in draft order submitted to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Income Tax Act about charging of interest under section 139(8) and 217(1A), no order for levy of the said interest could have been made in the final order passed thereafter with prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income Tax Officer not having mentioned in draft order submitted to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Act about initiating penalty proceedings u...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial