Gujarat Court January 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parshottamdas K. Panchal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Guj)586; [2002]257ITR96(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-IV, Ahmedabad, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred following question of law for the opinion of this Court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of Assessment Year 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the share income from M/s. Karshandas Bechardas & Sons was rightly deleted from the total income of the assessee who was assessed in the status of an individual?'2. FACTS : The respondent - assessee is an individual. He was a member of an H.U.F. known as 'Kantilal Karshandas' which was a partner in the firm of M/s Karshandas Bechardas & Sons through its Karta. A partial partition had taken place in the family in the year relevant to the Assessment Year 1970-71 by which the amount standing in the name of the HUF in the books of M/s. Karshandas Bechardas & Sons was partitioned amongst the members of the family. At the time of the partitio...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad South Indian Association Charitable Trust Vs. Deputy Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR326(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. M. R. Bhatt and Co. waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken-up for final disposal today.2. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner which is a public charitable trust and which is also an assessee under the Income-tax Act, has challenged the decision contained in the letter dated October 16, 2000 (annexure H to the petition) issued by respondent No. 1--Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad, refusing to issue income-tax clearance certificate under Section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').3. The petitioner-trust has contended that the petitioner is an assessee under the Act and has been filing returns of income regularly and its assessments up to the assessment year 1998-99 have been completed. 'It is further submitted that the income of the petitioner-trust is exempted under...
Tag this Judgment!Taiyabji Fidahusen Challawala Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4347; (2001)4GLR699
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting of the order No. DTN/ECA/3/2000 dated 29-7-2000 passed by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Dohod under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Challenging the order the learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions :-(i) There is a considerable inordinate unexplained delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner. It is contended that there is delay of 26 days in deciding the representation of the petitioner for which no explanation whatsoever has been given out by the respondent No. 1. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Mahinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed, AIR 1987 SCC 1977, Rumana Begam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 Supl. (2) SCC 341 and Rajammal v. State o...
Tag this Judgment!Cc and Ce Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(96)LC9(Gujarat)
B.C. Patel, J.1. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya for the petitioner.Facts in a nutshell, as it appears from the compilation, are as under:2. The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as GSFC) imported consignments of Phosphoric Acid and claimed benefit of Notification No. 235 of 1989. Bills of Entry were filed by the respondent GSFC which were provisionally assessed at the rate of 15%. The Bills of Entry relate to imports made during the years 1989 and 1990. On 19.4.1991, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar decided the matter in favour of GSFC and held that consequential refund be granted to GSFC in respect of the cases where the goods were assessed to duty at the rate of 15% ad-valorem. In view of the aforesaid order, GSFC filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,48,41,113/- on 4.6.1991. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 31.5.1995 proposing to deal with the refund claim as per Section 27 of the Act. By order dated 17.8.1995, the Assistant Commissioner a...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad South Indian Association Charitable Trust Vs. Deputy Commiss ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN413(Guj)
Shah, J.Rule. M.R. Bhatt & Co. waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken-up for final disposal today.2. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner which is a public charitable trust and which is also an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 has challenged the decision contained in the letter dated 16-10-2000 (Annexure-H to the petition) issued by respondent No. 1Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad, refusing to issue income-tax clearance certificate under section 230A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The petitioner-trust has contended that the petitioner is an assessee under the Act and has been filing returns of income regularly and its assessments up to the assessment year 1998-99 have been completed. It is further submitted that the income of the petitioner-trust is exempted under the provisions of the Act and there is no outstanding liability as o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Gujarat State Fertilize ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC17
ORDERB.C. Patel, J.1. Heared learned Advocate Mr. Asim Pandya for the petitioner.Facts in a nutshell, as it appears from the compilation, are as under:2. The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as GSFC) imported consignments of Phosphoric Acid and claimed benefit of Notification No. 235 of 1989. Bills of Entry were filed by the respondent GSFC which were provisionally assessed at the rate of 15%. The Bills of Entry relate to imports made during the years 1989 and 1990. On 19.4.1991, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar decided the matter in favour of GSFC and held that consequential refund be granted to GSFC in respect of the cases where the goods were assessed to duty at the rate of 15% ad-valorem. In view of the aforesaid order, GSFC filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,48,41,113 on 4.6.1991. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 31.5.1995 proposing to deal with the refund claim as per Section 27 of the Act. By order dated 17.8.1995, the Assistant Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Gitar Laboratories Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)2GLR1478
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. The Gitar Laboratories, a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, at Ahmedabad, by this petition challenges two bills dated 12-8-1989 (demand notices) raised by the respondent for Rs. 67,827-60 and Rs. 1,03,751-36 in aggregate Rs. 1,71,578-96 against the petitioner. This claim has been raised by the respondent-company for electricity charges against the petitioner during which period the meter installed at the petitioner-establishment recording the electricity consumption remain dead i.e., it did not record any consumption at all during that period. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that it is not a case of malpractice or divergence of energy or theft of electricity or interference with the meter. It is a plain and simple case where the meter stopped reading consumption and this demand has been raised. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that the respondent acted very fairly and whatever relaxation could have ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. A.A. Pathan, Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR2915
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1987 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1984 by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D), Ahmedabad (Rural). The respondent (original plaintiff) filed a suit against the State of Gujarat seeking a decree to recover the amount of Rs. 15,01,411/- together with costs and interest. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 7,76,411/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. In the aforesaid appeal the State is the appellant in relation to the decretal amount while in First Appeal No. 108 of 1988 the respondent-plaintiff has come up in appeal seeking to enhance the decretal amount by a total sum of Rs. 7,25,000/-. 2. The Executive Engineer, Godhra (B&C;) Division invited tenders from the public for the work of constructing approach to overbridge at level crossing No. 45 on Dahod-Zalod-Banswada road. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulsattar Yusufbhai Qureshi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Guj179
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of slaughter and selling of meat of bulls, bullocks and other animals. By this petition, they question the constitutional validity of the Notification dated 11-12-1989 published in Government Gazette dated 13-12-1989 by the State of Gujarat, which is purported to have been issued by it in exercise of its powers conferred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) and Clause (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 and Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities and Cattle (Control) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958') as applicable to the State of Gujarat. By the impugned Notification, the earlier Notification issued on the same subject and under the same provisions of law dated 15-10-1976 has been modified, insofar as the imposition of ceiling of maximum number of bulls and bullocks that may be slaughtered in the City of Ahmedabad. Prior to the impugned Notification, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Vs. S.J. Gaekwad, Registrar, Gujarat High Court
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)1GLR752
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. These suo motu contempt proceedings arise from the order dated 27-12-2000 made by the learned single Judge directing the Registry to register the notice as an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 against the respondent, who is the Registrar of this Court, on the ground that there was inaction on the part of the Registrar to comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge on 8th February, 2000 in Civil Application No. 282 of 2000 which, prima facie, amounted to contempt of Court.2. It appears that Special Civil Application No. 10364 of 1999 was filed by the Director, Government Printing & Stationery Department, Gandhinagar and the Additional Chief Secretary, Industries & Mines Department, Gandhinagar, against one Mr. M. G. Parmar, challenging the judgment and order dated 30-11-1998 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in a group of appeals which included Appeal No. 28 of 1998, setting aside the order dated 18-12-1997, by which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »