Gujarat Court July 2002 Judgments
ito Vs. Mahavir Builders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Guj)72
Judgment M. S. Shah, J.These twelve tax appeals are filed by the Income Tax Officer, Rajkot, for challenging the common judgment and order dated 29-9-2001, passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Rajkot, in one group of six appeals filed by M/s Tirupati Builders and the other group of six appeals filed by M/s Mahavir builders in respect of assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Since in all these appeals common questions of fact and law are involved, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent-assessees i.e., M/s Tirupati builders and M/s Mahavir builders are two separate partnership firms engaged in the business of construction and selling of flats. M/s Tirupati builders constructed the property known as Ajanta Apartments at Rajkot. The construction was commenced in the year relevant to assessment year 1985-86 and it continued up to the year relevant to assessment year 1987-88. The assessee had declared the cost of construction in the books of account m...
Tag this Judgment!Parakramsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja and ors. Vs. Yogi Corporation and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR192
D.P. Buch, J. 1. This is a Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short 'the Code') challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned Jt. District Judge, Rajkot, on 1st July, 2002 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2002. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the learned Jt. District Judge, Rajkot, dismissed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2002 hut allowed the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2002 and directed that the order passed by the learned trial Judge below application Exh. 5 in Civil Suit No. 321 of 2001 be quashed and set aside and the said application Exh. 5 was ordered to be dismissed. The parties were made to suffer their own cost in both the appeals. 3. Before the appeals were filed, the petitioners, herein, had preferred Special Civil Suit No. 321 of 2001 and in the said suit they had submitted an application Exh. 5 for getting temporary relief preventing the first respondent from transferring the suit property and from dealin...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Guj)351; [2003]260ITR595(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondents, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.2. The petitioner is a trust set up by the Government of Gujarat as a result of a memorandum of understanding with the Jacob Blaustein Institute of Desert Research, Israel, in September, 1993, for setting up an institute for research on desert and desertification. Accordingly, the Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology, the petitioner herein, was established at Bhuj in May, 1995, and was registered as a public trust and a society. The petitioner was also registered as a trust under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner had filed returns for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 on October 30, 1998. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in giving notice under Section 11(1) read with Expla...
Tag this Judgment!Chiloda Gram Panchayat Vs. Secretary, Appeal Committee, District Panch ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR564
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short question involved in this petition is whether an Appellate Committee of a District Panchayat can pass an order counter to the order passed by the Development Commissioner on the same subject-matter.2. The short facts of the case are that on 28-12-1992, the Gram Panchayat, Chiloda, petitioner herein, passed Resolution Nos. 3, 4 and 5. So far as Resolution No. 5 is concerned, Appeal No. 4 of 1993 was preferred before the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat. The appeal was entertained by the Appellate Committee and on 25-6-1993, the Appellate Committee had passed the order, whereby the stay order granted against Resolution Nos. 3, 4, and 5 was vacated. It may be noted that prior to the order dated 25-6-1993, order dated 28-5-1993 was passed by the Appellate Committee of the District Panchayat, whereby the stay was vacated in Appeal No. 4 of 1993. It is the case of the petitioner-Panchayat that against the order dated 25-6-1993 of the Appellate Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotsnaben M. Patel Vs. Director of Municipalities and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR610
Jayant Patel, J.1. Draft amendment granted.2. Rule. Ms. Devani, learned A.G.P., for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anjaria for respondent No. 2 waive service of rule respectively. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for final hearing.3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as the Councillor of the Patan Municipality (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipality') in the month of January, 2000. Thereafter, she was also elected as the President of the Municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that the statutory term of the petitioner as a Councillor of the Municipality is for five years which would be upto 2005. The Director of Municipalities issued a show-cause notice on 7-3-2002 to the petitioner under Section 37 read with Section 70 of Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the petitioner in the capacity as the President has diverted the laying down of pipeline from Vivek Motors to Karmabhoomi road whic...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Shanabhai Shah and ors. Vs. Ambikaben Shivshankar Trivedi a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Guj58
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Mr. Ravindra R. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, stales that petitioner No. 5 has expired on 28-12-2001 and his legal heirs are not desirous of persuing the matter and, therefore, he submits that the matter may be treated as for petitioners No, 1 to 4 only. Mr. Shah further stat.es that the rule is served by direct service and some of the respondents have refused and the affidavit of service of rule including for refusal ts filed and taken on record.2. Since in all these petitions common facts and common questions are involved.they are being dealt with together.3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2 Society, Mathuriyanagar Cooperative Housing Society (referred hereinafter as 'the Society') has entered into the settlement contrary to and dehors the resolution passed by the General Body of the society.4. The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the members of the society an...
Tag this Judgment!Arvindbhai Jethabhai Parmar Vs. Comissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)4GLR3537
C.K. Buch, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Police Commissioner, dated 10.4.2002 in exercise of powers vested under him by Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PASA Act').2. The petitioner has been branded as bootlegger within the meaning of sec. 2(b) of the PASA Act and the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority on the strength of the registration of a criminal case registered with DCB Police Station for the offence punishable under sec. 66(1)(B), 65(E)(A) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act on 5.4.2002.3. In this solitary case registered against the petitioner, a Maruti Fronti car was intercepted by the Police from which approximately 2152 bottles of Indian made foreign liquor was seized. One Hero-Honda motor-cycle and two mobile phones found were also seized...
Tag this Judgment!Aptech Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR56
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. In this petition which is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short hereinafter), petitioners against whom Criminal Complaint No. 918 of 2001 is filed in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in which the process has been issued, have prayed to quash and set aside the said complaint and process issued thereunder on the grounds stated in the petition,2. A private complaint came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by respondent No. 2, G.D.R. Securities Limited (hereinafter referred to 'G.D.R.' for the sake of brevity and convenience) against petitioner No. 1, Aptech Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Aptech' for the sake of brevity and convenience), its Directors and authorized signatory for commission of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short hereinafter).2(i) It is inter alia alleged in the said complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arvind Jewellers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Guj)546; [2003]259ITR502(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law are referred for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1981-82 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal in setting aside the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is even otherwise sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm and had filed its return of income disclosing a net loss of Rs. 2,777 in the business of purchase and sale of ornaments and jewellery. The Income-tax Officer issued notices under Sections 142(2) and 143(1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with the requirement letter. After considering the material produced by the assessee and the explanation offered, the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Budhilal Hiralal Rana
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Guj)647
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law are referred to this Court for its opinion for asst, yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82 :1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order made by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that even if there is an omission or mistake with regard to certain items it was not proper as found in the assessment order to set aside the whole assessment?' 2. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee. Since we are deciding this reference in favour of the assessee even if the office endorsement shows that the respondent is not served, no prejudice will be caused to the assessee by virtue of his absence in the present reference. For asst. yr. 1980-81, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »