Gujarat Court June 2002 Judgments
Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR613; [2002]257ITR202(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is a registered association of the stamp vendors of Ahmedabad. As the officers of the Income-tax Department called upon the State Government to deduct tax at source under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on commission or brokerage to the persons carrying on the business as 'stamp vendors', the petitioner-association has approached this court with a prayer to quash and set aside the communication at annexure D collectively, and for a declaration that Section 194H of the Act is not applicable to an assessee carrying on business as a stamp vendor.In response to the notice, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-II, for justifying the invocation of Section 194H of the Act.By the Finance Act, 2001, Section 194H was inserted in the Act with effect from June 1, 2001. The section reads as under :'194H. Commission or brokerage.--Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Prabhudas Sarvaiya Vs. Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR885
Jayant Patel, J. 1. The present petition arises against the order, dated 9-7-2001 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal below the application for condonation of delay in Appeal No. 289 of 1998. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was one of the defendants in the suit before the Tribunal being Lavad Suit No. 1044 of 1995 which was filed by the respondent authority for recovery of amount. The summons appears to have been served by substitute service. Thereafter, the mominee has passed the final judgment and award dated 3-4-1997. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never intimated regarding the final judgment and award in accordance with the Rule 41(4) of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). However, when the Special Recovery Officer issued the demand notice for recovery of amount the petitioner came to know about the award passed by the learned Nominee, and therefore, the petitioner preferred appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Thakore K. Patel Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR506
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Rule. Mr. Deepak Dave for Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Advocate appears and waives service of Rule. At the request of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner's premises was visited by the officers of the respondent-Board on 31-12-1998. After inspection of the premises, it was recorded by the officers of the respondent-Board that the meter of electric consumption installed at the premises of the petitioner was running slow by 39.55%, and further, that the meter had been tampered with resulting into theft of electricity. The said meter was replaced by another meter and the old meter was sent for laboratory test. The finding of the laboratory test shows that prima facie recording that the meter had been tampered with was correct and theft of the electricity had actually taken place. A supplementary bill of Rs. 3,55,430-13 ps. was issued. The petitioner preferred an appeal and on payment of 30% of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Guj)193
M.S. Shah, J.The petitioner is a registered association of the stamp vendors of Ahmedabad As the officers of the income-tax department called upon the State Government to deduct tax at source under section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) on commission or brokerage to the persons carrying on the business as 'stamp vendors', the petitioner-association has approached this court with a prayer to quash and set aside the communication at Annexure 'D' collectively, and for a declaration that section 194H of the Act is not applicable to an assessee carrying on business as a stamp vendor.2. In response to the notice, an affidavit-in- reply has been filed by the Commissioner Ahmedabad-II for justifying the invocation of section 194H of the Act.3. By the Finance Act, 2001, section 194H was inserted in the Act with effect from 1-6-2001. The section reads as under :'194H. Commission or brokerageAny person, not being an individual or an HUF, who is responsible ...
Tag this Judgment!Hargovind Damji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR617(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer is barred by limitation ?' 2. The assessment year in question is the assessment year 1973-74. The asses-see filed a return of income on August 14, 1973, declaring the total income of Rs. 10,904. The due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was June 30, 1973. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular on June 20, 1973 (see [1973] 90 ITR 20), extending the time for filing the return for the assessment year 1973-74 up to August 15, 1973. The assessee thereafter filed the revised return on March 22, 1976, disclosing the total income of Rs. 11,304. The Income-tax Officer processed the said return and completed the assessment on March 15, 1977, treating the r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bombay Conductors and Electrical Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR667(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, for the residential property on the ground that the same was used for guest house and business premise ?'2. In the present case, the assessee is a company which owns a residential property which was valued at Rs. 4,40,087. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had contended that the said property was being used for the purpose of the business as a guest house and, therefore, it should not be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept this contention and included the value thereof in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee- On appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) had upheld the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sancheti Yarns Ltd. Vs. Bank of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC660; (2003)1GLR115
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged by way of this petition order dated 21st September, 2001 in Original Application No. 95 of 1996 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad.2. Bank of India, Gopipura Branch, Surat is the applicant in Original Application No. 95 of 1996 filed before the Tribunal and in the said proceedings, on 15th November, 1997, a written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein. It is an admitted position that till 23rd January, 2001, except for exchange of pleadings the matter before the Tribunal had not proceeded any further. On 23rd January, 2001, vide Exh. A/34, the Bank moved an amendment application whereby it was prayed on behalf of the Bank that the word 'private' appearing in the name of the petitioner, wherever appearing in the Original Application and the record and proceedings, may be permitted to be deleted and the Original Application may be permitted to be further amended by adding one paragraph as reproduced in the ame...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshbhai Maganbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1048
C.K. Buch, J. 1. This special criminal application has been moved by the applicant-prisoner for appropriate writ, order or direction in reference to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara on 30-3-2002 refusing his prayer to grant parole for a period of 21 days on account of death of his mother on 30-11-2001. 2. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. H.H. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of State. On 20-6-2002, following order was passed. 'Notice returnable on 20-6-2002. Mr. H.H. Patel waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. The responsible officer of the Gazetted Cadre from the office of District Magistrate, Vadodara is directed to remain personally present with all relevant papers and the details wherein the District Magistrate, Vadodara has granted to the prisoners on account of death of father or mother of the prisoners in the last one year. Copy of this order be given to learned A.P.P.' Responsible person from the office of the District Magistrate, Vadodara is pre...
Tag this Judgment!Hirbai @ Hanifben W/O Sangan Bhai Hajibhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC705
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Shri P.R.Abichandani, learned A.P.P. waives service of Rule in both matters.2. Bail Application i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.3686 of 2002 is filed by the present applicants accused who are father-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Zarina. They are aged 75 and 24 years respectively. They are Muslims. Earlier Bail Application i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1889 of 2002 filed by the same accused was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail application after receipt of 'Visera Report'. Visera Report shows that there was no poisoning. After receipt of the Visera Report (Annexure : C) the applicant - accused first approached the learned trial Judge by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.78 of 2002 filed by the co-accused Hirbai @ Hanifaben, mother-in-law of deceased came to be dismissed by common judgment and order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Morbi. Accused Hirbai @ Hanifaben filed above bail application b...
Tag this Judgment!Dinaben Dhansukhjati Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC683
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Shri P.R.Abichandani, learned A.P.P. waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent.2. The applicant - accused No.1 Shrimati Dinaben is the mother in law of deceased Ravina and applicant - accused No.2 Shrimati Hetalben is the sister in law of deceased Ravina i.e. husband's sister of Ravina. They have filed this Application for releasing them on Bail after their Regular Bail Application No.373 of 2002 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot on 17.5.2002.3. The F.I.R. was lodged by Ansuyaben, wife of Ganeshpuri Kakupuri before the Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City, on 8.4.2002 at about 7.45 p.m. for the offences u/ss. 498-A, 306, 114 I.P.Code for the incident in question which took place on 8.4.2002 between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. wherein her daughter Ravina, aged 25 years, mother of infant child (girl) of Six months committed suicide because of the constant torture meted out to her by her husband Bhavesh Dhansukhlal Jati, who has not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »