Gujarat Court February 2002 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.
Synbiotics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Guj)330; [2003]259ITR122(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', Ahmedabad, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,345 paid as guarantee commission was on capital account and disallowable as such ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 20,924 in respect of exchange loss was disallowable as capital expenditure ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Revenue has also preferred a reference application against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and at the instance of the Revenue, the following question was referred to this court for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in la...
Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known as Sarabhai Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR355(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. All these four references have been argued at length together and they concern the same assessee and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Income Tax Reference No. 56 of 1986 (which emanates from the quantum proceedings in respect of the Assessment Years 1979-80 and 1980-81), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad has referred the following questions of for the opinion of this Court :'For the A.Y. 1979-80 - at the instance of the assessee :[1] Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 66,29,236/- being the amount of interest as determined by the Income Tax Officer on a notional basis from 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1978 was liable to tax on accrual basis for A.Y. 1979-80?[2] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest accrued from day-to-day as a result of supplementary ...
Synbiotics Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN743(Guj)
K.A. Pui, J. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 50,345 paid as guarantee commission was on capital account and disallowable as such ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 20,924 in respect of exchange loss was disallowable as capital expenditure ?3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of interest under section 215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The revenue has also preferred reference application against the order of the Tribunal and at the instance of the revenue, following question was referred to this court for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that charging of interest tinder section 216 of the I...
Sarabhai Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Guj)193
R.K. Abichandani, J.All these four references have been argued at length together and they concern the same assessee and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In IT Ref. No. 56 of 1986 (which emanates from the quantum proceedings in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'For the assessment years 1979-90 at the instance of the assessee :(1) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 66,29,236 being the amount of interest as determined by the Income Tax Officer on a notional basis from 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1978, was liable to tax on accrual basis for assessment year 1979-80 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the inter...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Rameshchandra Joshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR484
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This civil application is tiled for condoning delay of 5 years and 39 days in filing first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30-12-1995 passed by learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984, whereby learned Judge partly decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and directed the defendant/ applicants appellants herein to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land admeasuring 1,648 sq. metres to the plaintiff.2. It is the case of the original plaintiff before the trial Court that in the year 1971 Government of Gujarat issued notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, acquiring land in question for defence purpose. Ultimately, Government found it necessary to acquire piece of land instead of the whole land. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he became absolute owner of the suit land admeasuring 56 Are, S.M. 66, i.e. 1 Acre, 16 Gunthas. It was the case of the plaintiff t...
Mahendrabhai Karsanbhai Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3313
D.P. Buch, J. 1. The petitioner above named, has preferred this criminal revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'). The petitioner was prosecuted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no.12, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.649/90 filed by way of a private complaint by respondent no.2 herein, who is no more. It is reported that respondent no.2 has passed away. The said respondent had filed the aforesaid criminal case against the present petitioner for offence punishable under section 497 of IPC.2. The case of the second respondent (now deceased) original complainant in the aforesaid criminal case was that the deceased Chandulal Shitalbhai had contracted marriage with one Shakuntala on 28.4.1980 and since then they were staying as husband and wife in the house of Chandulal. However, Shakuntala did not like Chandulal and she developed relations with the petitioner who used to visit her house at Ahmed...
Rawal Chhanalal Shivram Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3050
D.P. Buch, J. 1. The petitioner above named has dpreferred this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgments and conviction orders recorded by the two Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the I.P.C.2. The petitioner was initially convicted for the said offence in Criminal Case No.14/1992 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana by his judgment and order dated 30.6.1992 and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years. He was directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the said offence punishable under Section 377 of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further S.I. for 1 year. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also directed that in case of recovery of fine of Rs.3,000/- an amount of Rs.2,500/shall be paid by way compensation to the victim Kaushikkumar.3. The present petitioner carried the said order before the Sessions Court at Mehsana by way of Cr...
R.P. Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3082; (2002)1GLR886
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. In these contempt proceedings initiated by the subordinate Court, this Bench of five senior most Judges of this' Court has been constituted because of the importance of the legal question referred to it by a Division Bench of this Court by order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 6752 of 2000 on 11-12-2000. The main question that requires decision is whether High Court can take cognizance of contempt proceedings in this case or it is only the Supreme Court on its judicial side which can deal with the case. The other related question is whether in fact any contempt has been committed and whether the proceedings initiated are within limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and if contempt has been committed and the proceedings are within limitation, what is the gravity of the contempt and what punishment deserves to be imposed.2. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the alleged contemners the facts no longer in dispute are...
Narendrabhai Chhaganbhai Bharatia Vs. Gandevi Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Guj209; I(2004)BC590; (2002)3GLR218
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 5, 2001 recorded in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Gandevi by which suit filed by respondent No. 1 against the present appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for relief of declaration that the sale deed registered on November 10, 1995 bearing registration No. 1164 with the office of the Sub-Registrar in respect of the property mentioned in para 11 of the plaint executed by deceased Manekben Mohanlal Kansara and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the appellant is in collusion with one another fraudulently with a mala fide intention with a view to defeat the legitimate claim of respondent No. 1 bank of recovering its outstanding amount and, therefore, the said transaction is illegal, null and void and unenforceable, came to be decreed in favour of respondent No. 1 bank.2. Appellant is ori...
Desaibhai Somabhai Vs. Executive Engineer, Narmada MaIn Canal Division ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR149
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. A. D. Oza, for the respondents.The applicants have approached this Court seeking clarification of the judgment rendered in group of aforesaid First Appeals, dated 22-7-1997 by this Court (Coram : J.N. Bhatt and H.R. Shelat, JJ.). The applicants have prayed that this Court may clarify that all the claimants in the aforesaid First Appeals are entitled to receive and the opponents are liable to pay to them the amount of solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') on the enhanced amount of market value which has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 53/- per sq. mtr. and further that the claimants are also entitled to receive the statutory benefits available to them by virtue of operation of Section 23(1-A) of the Act.2. Some relevant facts which are absolutely essential for deciding this application can be stated in brief as follows :-2.1. The applicants are the original owners of different agricultura...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »