Gujarat Court October 2001 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.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kiritbhai Lalchand Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: I(2003)ACC597; 2002ACJ1835; (2002)1GLR288
Y.B. Bhatt, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Appeals are admitted. Mr. V. M. Pancholi, Mr. M.T.M. Hakim and Shri N. K. Majmudar waive service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the appeals.3. On the joint request of learned Counsel for the respective parties, these appeals are taken up for hearing today.4. These are appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the common judgment and awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 415 of 1992 and 497 of 1992.5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company first sought to challenge the impugned judgment and awards on quantum and merits. It is a well settled proposition of law which does not require any discussion that theInsurance Company can only raise specific statutory defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the said Act. Furthermore...
Jayantibai Naranbhai AmIn and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj193
ORDERH.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard Mr. M. R. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AGPs Mr. S. P. Sen and Ms. D. S. Pandit, appearing on behalf of the respondents in respective petition.So far Special Civil Application No. 3273/ 2001 is concerned. RULE has been issued by this Court and granted interim relief by order dated 3rd May, 2001 and the said interim relief Is further directed to be continued till further order vide order dated 3rd July, 2001. In Special Civil Application No. 8193/2001, this Court has issued notice on 21st Sept., 2001 made it returnable on 3rd October. 2001. Therefore, RULE in SCA No. 8193/2001. Mr. S. P. Sen, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. Since the issues and question of law involved arise in these two petitions are common, both these are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of Special Civil Application No. 3273/2001 are that as per the case of th...
Kishore B. Setalvad Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)89; [2002]256ITR637(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act,' for brevity). At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 4(1)(b), 4(2) and 4(7) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the wealth-tax authorities in determining the value of the assessee's l/4th interest in the open plots in question in two co-operative housing societies at Rs. 40,125 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the assessee's miscellaneous applications on the ground that there was no mistake in its order dated July 14, 1986 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1979-80 and the relevant valuation date is March 31, 1979.3. The ass...
Mohanlal S. Doppa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR33(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these references, at the instance of the same assessee, are made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for brevity 'the Act').2. In Income-tax Reference No. 59 of 1988, the following question is referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 :'Whether, on the facts and in the ciraimstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) was legal and valid in law ?'3. In Income-tax Reference No. 60 of 1988, the following question is referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 273(c) was legal and valid in law ?'4. The relevant facts as found by the Tribunal and incorporated in the statement of case are as under :The assessee is an individual having business income. The assessee had made an application befo...
Mohanlal S. Doppa Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR33(Guj)
ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 245DLevy of penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(C)--Commission did not mention in its order about leviability of penalty--Assessing officer levied penalty after passing of order under section 245DCatch Note:The assessee's 'case' was settled by Settlement Commission and order under section 245D was passed--In order, Settlement Commissioner did not mention about levy of penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(c)--However, assessing officer levied penalty under both sections which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by Tribunal--Not sustainable--The Settlement Commission's order under sub-section (4) of section 245D did not contain any direction for levy of penalty, any such omission would amount to immunity under section 245H(1) from imposition of penalty with respect to case covered by settlement-- In this view of matter, it is not open to assessing officer to initiate any proceedings for imposition of penalty, even if any specific order f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›