Gujarat Court August 2001 Judgments
Cit Vs. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Guj)546
M.S. Shah, J.We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the revenue, and Mr. Manish J. Shah, for Mr. J. P. Shah learned counsel for the assessee.2. In this reference, two questions are referred at the instance of the revenue and one question is referred at the instance of the assessee.3. The first question referred at the instance of the revenue is in respect of assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. The question is as under :'Whether the assessee is entitled to interest under section 244(1A) in respect of interest payments under sections 215, 217, and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the controversy raised herein is concluded in. favour of the assessee as per the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Needle Industries (P) Ltd. : [1998]233ITR370(Mad) , Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sardar Balwant Singh Gujral (1990) 86 CTR (MP) 64 and Kerala High Court in CIT v. Ambat Echukutty Menon : [1988]173ITR581(...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.B. Narania and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Guj)416; [2001]252ITR884(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our decision in respect of the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the asses-see can be said to have employed ten or more workers in a manufacturingprocess carried on with the aid of power as provided under clause (iv) of Sub-section (2) of Section 80HH and Clause (iv) of Sub-section (4) of section 80J of the Act ?'2. The assessee carries on the business of manufacturing carborandum. The assessee claimed deductions under Sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that it had employed ten or more persons in the manufacturing process. The Income-tax Officer, however disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee got certain processes done from outsiders on piece-meal basis and that the assessee had not provided regular emp...
Tag this Judgment!Ranaji Bheraji Vanjara Vs. Bakore Gram Panchayat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR2844
A.R. Dave, J.1. These four appeals have been filed against a common judgemnt dated 5.3.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in 4 Special Civil Applications. As the facts pertaining to all the four appeals are quite similar, all the appeals are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are original petitioners who are aggrieved by the orders whereby lands allotted to them had been forfeited and had vested in the Government by different orders. Certain undisputed facts giving rise to the present litigation are as under :3. Special Civil Application No. 7890 of 2000 was filed by three petitioners on an apprehension that residential plots allotted to them might be forfeited in favour of the Government. Their apprehension was on account of certain internal communication which had taken place between certain Government authorities. At the time when the said petition was filed, no order cancelling the allotment had been passed. During the pendency...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. H.K. Dhruva
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3263
K.M. Mehta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1996 passed by Court No.20, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No.434/95 under section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Judge by her judgment and award has been pleased to confirm the award of the arbitrators in respect of item under claims nos 1,2 and 3; whereas the claim no. 4 and 5 were set aside.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:2.1 Shri H.K.Dhruva respondent herein has worked as a Railway contractor at Rajkot from 1971 to 1983. The Railway allotted many major civil engineering work of civil construction at Rajkot Hapa etc. when the Viramgam-Okha-Porbander Broadgauge Conversion Project came to Saurashtra. In June 1979 the railway allotted work of 'Various MPCI Structures in Rajkot Yard and a contract agreement between the respondent and the Union of India/Indian Railway was executed on 18....
Tag this Judgment!Mananbhai Niranjanbhai Sheth Vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3448
B.C. Patel, J.1. Against the order made by the Small Causes Court (Court No. 10), Ahmedabad on 21.11.97, the present Special Civil Application is filed. Facts briefly required to be narrated are as under.2. Petitioner is the owner and occupier of a tenement bearing No. 2815-0321-00-008-L, bearing Survey No. /C 00188/B/5 + B + 1 to B/6-7 of Dariapur-Kazipur, Ahmedabad. It is a self-occupied property. It is pointed out that the property is situated within the city of Ahmedabad and respondent - Corporation assesses and recovers property tax under Section 127 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the BPMC Act'). The property tax consists of general tax, conservancy tax and water tax. In para 8 of the petition, the petitioner has pointed out that the self-occupied property was being assessed and taxed for municipal taxes from the year 1984 to 1991 with yearly rateable value of Rs. 72/-. In the petition, chart is given indicating all the detai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR762(Guj)
M. S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for our determination arising out of I. T. A. No. 1347/Ahd of 1985 in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'(1) Whether in law and on facts, the Tribunal is right in holding that medical benefit and house rent allowance to the managing director cannot be considered, for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether in law and on facts, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that cash payment of a special duty allowance of Rs. 16,611 to the employees cannot be considered for disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether the assessee is entitled in law and on facts, to a deduction of Rs. 4,750 under Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In so far as question No. 1 pertains to reimbursement of medical benefit, the controversy is concluded against the assessee by t...
Tag this Judgment!Manojbhai Bhagwandas Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2134; (2002)2GLR1052
D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. In this Revision the order of Shri S. D. Dave, special Judge, Ahmedabad, is under challenge. Under the impugned order he has rejected the final report submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short 'A.C.B.') and issued summons to the revisionist under Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.')-2. The brief facts are that the complainant Nayanhhai K. Patel lodged F.I.R. on 27-3-1998 before A.C.B. against the revisionist. Allegations of corruption were made against the revisionist which were investigated by the A.C.B. and ultimately, it was revealed during investigation that there was no evidence to file charge-sheet against the accused revisionist. Accordingly, final report was submitted. On receipt of final report the special Judge issued notice to the complainant. The complainant appeared through Advocate Shri K. I. Patel and tiled protest petition Exh. 8 with xerox copies of Judgments. Additional list of documents was also produced by ...
Tag this Judgment!Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Swiss Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)2GLR1734
D.P. Buch, J.1. Whether 'SUPERDAC' medicine manufactured, marketed and sold by the respondent herein contains a mark which is deceptively similar or identical with the mark 'SPARDAC', a product of the appellant, is a question at controversy between the parties in this First Appeal.2. The appellant abovenamed has preferred this First Appeal under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') against the judgment and decree dated 25-8-2000 recorded by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 4754 1998 under which the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the appellant-original plaintiff and further directed the appellant-original plaintiff to pay to both the respondents herein cost of the suit and to bear their own costs in the suit.3. The main grievance of the appellant before the trial Court was that the appellant had already marketed a medicine named SPARDAC somewhat over a year before the institution of the suit. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Akhil Gujarat Pravasi Vahan Sanchalak Mahamandal and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Guj121; (2002)1GLR58
K. R. Vyas, J.1. The petitioners in this group of petitions have challenged Rule 5, Sub-rule (1) and (2) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 (in short 'the Rules') as amended by Nolification dated 6-2-2001 and Circular dated 8-2-2001 issued by the State Government and Section 3A(1) and 3A(2) of Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act').The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 1288 of 2001 who are luxury bus operators, in their amended petition, also prayed to declare Sections 3A(1) and 3A(2) of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution. They have also prayed to declare Act No. 11 of 2000 and Ordinance No. 2 of 2000 as ultra vires, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and violative of Entry 56 and 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.2. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 1288 of 2001 are the Associations of which all the members are tour operators doing their business in the State of Gujarat.The p...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyed Iqbal Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)4GLR3380
M.S. Shah, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard and is being disposed of by this judgment.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to continue the occupation and user by respondent No. 4 of the premises admeasuring about 1637 sq. yards of land with 299 sq.yards of construction thereon in the Motilal Park, popularly known as Law Garden in Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has also prayed that the said premises be given by public auction. The petitioner has also prayed that the rent at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/per month be recovered from respondent No. 4-Modern Caterers Pvt. Ltd. from October, 1998 onwards.3. In the Ellisbridge area of the city of Ahmedabad, there is a Municipal garden called Motilal Park, popularly known as the Law Garden. A part of the Park being land admeasuring 1637 sq. yards with construction...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »