Gujarat Court October 2001 Judgments
Jairajsinh Temubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR215
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondal, passed on 6th of October, 2001 below Criminal Revision Application No. 57 of 2001, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondal, passed on 30th September, 2001, rejecting the application of the Investigating Agency for remand of the present petitioner and it was directed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the present petitioners be remanded to police custody from 9th October, 2001 to 12th October, 2001. The said order is extended from time to time in this Revision Application.2. The facts go to show that the incident in question occurred on 3rd September, 2001, in which one Govindbhai Desai, an Advocate of Gondal was badly injured who was former President of Gondal Municipality. It is the case that Govindbhai Desai was assaulte...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)129; [2003]262ITR657(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance or the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 :'Whether in law and on facts when the assessee received possession of the flat in October, 1981, and sold the same on December 4, 1982, the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 80T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference, briefly stated, are as under :The assessee is an individual and the assessment year involved is 1983-84. She filed the return of her income on June 23, 1983, showing total income at Rs. 39,756. During the course of examination of the record of the assessee, it was noticed by the Income-tax Officer that she had taken possession of a flat in October, 1981, and the said flat was sold in December, 1982, for Rs. 1,40,000 including outstanding loan of Rs. 30,000. The Income-tax Officer further noted that in her return of income, the assessee had claimed the capital gain as a long t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Industrial Products
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)527; [2005]274ITR635(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act1), for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of unpaid sales-tax liability amounting to Rs. 3,130 and Rs. 895 invoking the provisions of Section 43B ?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of unpaid royalty invoking the provisions of Section 43B amounting to Rs. 10,785 and Rs. 4,599 ?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is year ended 30th June, 1983. The assessee, registered partnership firm, carries on business of manufacture of chalk powder and trading and selling followed mercantile assessment (sic-system) of accounting. It appears that there were two sales-tax accounts and the credit balance therefrom were taken to balance sheet. Similarly...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Instrumentation Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)441
Rajesh Balia, J.This application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner for stating the case and referring the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dated 28-9-1984.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income Tax Officer to follow the procedure adopted in 1974-75 and 1975-76 on the point of deduction of sales contingency provision and then determine the amount to be allowed ?'The question relates to the transfer of amount to the sales contingency provision by the respondent-assessee and deduction thereof from the total computation of income. For the earlier assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Tribunal laid down certain procedure to be adopted and determined the amount to be deducted from the computation of taxable income of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision for the earlier years, the Tribunal has made the same order fo...
Tag this Judgment!Atmarambhai Maganlal Patel and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj186; (2002)3GLR66
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates.2. The petitioners are some of the Members of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Committee'). The petitioners seek declaration that the respondent Nos. 8 and 10, the members of the said Committee nominated under Clauses (iv) and (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), do not have a right to vote at the election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, the respondent Nos. 7 and 11 respectively, of the said Committee.3. Mr. Mehta has submitted that at the election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the said Committee, the nominated members of the said Committee had cast their votes which has tilted the balance. He has submitted that the nominated members of the said Committee had no right to cast their votes at the election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. He has submitted that, it is the e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narendra N. Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Guj)412; [2003]261ITR185(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 :'Whether, in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to deduction ofRs. 23,000 in the computation of capital gain accrued to him on the transfer ofthe bungalow ?'2. Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan purchased certain agricultural lands for Rs. 9,000 on July 3, 1954. He threw the said property in his Hindu undivided family on January 27, 1958. Thereafter the Hindu undivided family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan, the father of the assessee, started construction on a piece of the said land and spent Rs. 42,354. The assessee pressed for a partial partition which was effected on October 15, 1971. At that time, the total property of the Hindu undivided family of Mr. Narandas J. Chauhan was valued at Rs. 2,20,000. One-fifth share of the assessee came to Rs. 44,000. Sub-plot No. 2 admeasuring 1,347 sq. yards including the incompletely constructed ...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Shah Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj261
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The present applicant is the judicial officer of the State. By way of this Misc. Civil Application, he has prayed that his Lordship (Late Justice S. D. Shah) be pleased to grant this application and review the judgment and order dated 18-6-1993 delivered in A.O. No. 558/92 with A.O. No. 106/93 (reported in (1994) 35 (1) Guj LR 161) to the extent that the adverse remarks/strictures made against the applicant with regard to his conduct in para 25 of the said judgment and delete the same from the judgment.2. Initially, notice was ordered to be issued on this application by Justice S. D. Shah himself. In response to the notice issued by this Court respondents appeared through their counsel. During the pendency of this application. Justice S. D. Shah died as a Sitting Judge of this Court at the young age of 51. Thereafter, my learned Brother Y. B. Bhatt, J. made rule returnable on this application; Thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time by different Judges of...
Tag this Judgment!Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR713(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of short term capital loss amounting to Rs. 1,24,545 arising out of loss incurred on account of sale of shares in question to Ambernath Investments Pvt. Ltd. which was a wholly owned subsidiary company of Kaveri Investments Pvt. Ltd. which, in its turn was a wholly owned subsidiary company of the assessee-company (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in interpreting various relevant provisions of various Acts such as Sections 45, 47(iv)(a), 2(17), 2(26) of the Income-tax Act as well as Section 4, etc., of the Companies Act, 1956, while arriving at the conclusion that the loss in question was incurred on account of transaction between the parent company and the subsidiary ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Murtuza Ali Mehboobali Merchant
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)1GLR415
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the State of Gujarat on behalf of Mr. B. J. Patel, the Food Inspector, Bhavnagar, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, passed on 20th January, 2000 discharging the present respondent-accused in Criminal Case No. 1006 of 1999 of the charges levelled against him under Section 2(1-a), (a), (m) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. As per brief facts of the case, the original complainant Mr. B. J. Patel, Food Inspector is a Food Inspector of the State of Gujarat. On the date of incident, the said Food Inspector was working as such in the District of Bhavnagar. The respondent herein accused is running a shop and selling edible oil at the Station Road, Bhavnagar. On 12th October, 1998, Food Inspector obtained a sample of refined rapeseed oil from the shop of the accused. After necessary formalities as per the Rules, the sample was sent to Public...
Tag this Judgment!Akbarmiya Amirmiya and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR954a
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The main point in focus, in this group of petitions, is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) pertaining to redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.2. Since all the petitioners have claimed the benefit of the provisions of Section 28A of the Act, and common questions are involved in this group of petitions, therefore, upon request, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The petitioners had requested the respondent authority for redetermination of the amount of compensation obtained by them on the basis of the consent award declared on 24-2-1988 under Section 11(2) of the Act, on the strength of the subsequent award of the Court under Section 18(1) declared on 13-2-1989. The respondent authority declined the request of the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that they are not entitled to the benefit of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »