Gujarat Court July 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Natverlal Jivanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR739(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 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(a) could be levied against the registered firm for delay in filing the return when the advance tax paid by the firm exceeded the assessed tax payable by the firm and the assessment resulted in refund ?'2. The assessment year involved is the assessment year 1981-82. Heard Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. No one appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee though notice was duly served.3. At the time of hearing of this reference, Mr. Bhatt has invited our attention to the decision of this court in I. T. R. No. 34 of 1986 in the case of CIT v. Textile and General Engineer Co. : [2003]259ITR735(Guj) . The Revenue has raised four questions in that reference and question No. 2 which was referred was mo...
Tag this Judgment!Haiderali Babubhai Masani Vs. J.D. Joshi, Sub-divisional Magistrate, M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)4GLR2836
C.K. Buch, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of externment dated 31-12-2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahuva and confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. State Government on 6-3-2002 by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The order of externment dated 31-12-2001 is at Annexure-B and the order dated 6-3-2002 of the appellate authority is at Annexure-D of this petition.2. The notice to show cause under Section 59(1) was served to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 28-8-2001 alleging that he is a dangerous person and has been found involved in four different offences punishable under Chapters 16 and 17 of I.P.C. It is alleged in the notice to show cause that the activities of the petitioner was threats to the peace and maintenance of public order and under the threat and distress as to of their safety, the witnesses may not turn up in the Court of law to dep...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Natverlal Jivanlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Guj)542
K.A. Puj, J.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 was right in law in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(a) could be levied against the registered firm for delay in filing the return when the advance tax paid by the firm exceeded the assessed tax payable by the firm and the assessment resulted in refund?'2. The assessment year involved is assessment year 1981-82. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the revenue. No one appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee though notice was duly served.3. At the time of hearing of this reference. Mr. Bhatt has invited our attention to the decision of this court in the IT Ref. No. 34 of 1986, in the case of CIT v. Textile and General Engineer Co. (2002) 178 CTR (Guj) 539.The revenue has raised four questions in that reference and the question No. 2 which was referred to was more or le...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavesh Arvindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR560
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Shri P.R. Abichandani, waives service of Rule.2. The petitioner-accused has filed this 2nd Bail Application after submission of charge sheet. His first Bail Application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition before the trial Court after submission of charge sheet. Accordingly, after submission of charge-sheet the petitioner accused once again approached the trial Court by way of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 507 of 2002. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, by his impugned Judgment and order dated 28-6-2002 rejected the Bail Application of the petitioner-accused on the ground that there is no change in the circumstances after his first Bail Application was rejected by the trial Court and mere filing of charge-sheet is no ground to release the accused on Bail. The learned Judge also considered the fact that name of the applicant-accused was clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. Hence, this 2nd Bail Appl...
Tag this Judgment!Keki Patel of Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal JaIn and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR731
ORDER' as instructed by the complainant with the stipulation that on payment of the value of the consignment by the notified party i.e. M/s. Bankco S. A. of France through the Bank and on presentment of the consignee's Airway Bills to the accused, the goods of the Invoice would be delivered to the notified party namely M/s. Bankco S. A. by the accused. In other words, the petitioners were required to see that the said purchaser should get released the original Airway Bills from the Bank after making payment of consideration of the consignment to the said Bank and on presentment of the said Original Airway Bills, the consignment was required to be delivered to the purchaser. 5. It is further alleged in the said complaint that the accused persons by agreeing and accepting the invoice dated 29-4-1997 for goods material of ladies Knitted T-shirts of the value stated hereinabove and promising and assuring the complainant by their Airway Bills dated 2-5-1997, induced the complainant deliver ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonecha Brothers Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC395(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking from this Court a declaration that Section 47(4A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution and consequently the order, annexure A/2 and the notice of demand in pursuance thereto are ultra vires, without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. The petitioner has further sought a declaration that the order at annexure A/2 is also liable to be set aside and quashed being apparently illegal, contrary to the provisions of Section 19B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, mala fide prejudicial and unconstitutional. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from recovering from the petitioner any tax, penalty and/or interest in terms of order at annexure A/2 and the notice of demand in pursuant thereto.2. As far as the challenge to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Jolly Chandravadan and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1190
C.K. Buch, J. 1. This group of petitions are filed in the matter of appointment on the post of Lecturers in Government Colleges invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 in special reference to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, Scope of further division of these group matters is positively there on set of facts, but notionally it can be said that these petitions are moved by two rival groups viz., one group is of candidates who are selected by Gujarat Public Service Commission ('G.P.S.C.' for short) for the post of Lecturer awaiting appointment. Another group is of those Lecturers who have been appointed as Lecturers on an ad hoc basis till regularly selected candidates by G.P.S.C. are made available. Those petitioners who have been selected by G.P.S.C. for the post of Lecturers have prayed for a writ of mandamus for issuance of directions to the Government to appoint them on the post of Lecturers. The other group is of Lecturers already appointed on ad hoc...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendrasinh Mahaviarsinh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3GLR883
B. J. Shethna, J. 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P., Mr. P. R. Abichandani waives service of rule for respondent-State. 2. Mr. Abichandani, learned A.P.P., for the respondent-State conceded that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of Mr. B. J. Shah, learned A.P.P. appearing before the trial Court to state that the name of the accused was disclosed immediately in the F.I.R. In fact, the name of the accused was disclosed immediately by the complainant, but in his further statement recorded on that very day i.e. on 20-10-2001, the day on which he lodged F.I.R. about the incident which took place on previous night of 19-10-2001 at 10-30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged at 2-00 a.m. at 20-10-2001 i.e., within three and half hours of the incident. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. N. D. Nanavati appearing for the applicant-accused vehemently submitted that there was a total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the subsequent bail application by his judgment a...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Park Co-op. Housing Society Vs. Trivedi Bhartiben W/O. S.S. Tri ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)1GLR190
D.P. Buck, J.1. The petitioner, herein, has preferred this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenging the order dated 7-1-1989 recorded by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Mehsana below Exh. 68 in Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 1988 under which the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application of the present petitioner-original plaintiff seeking amendment in plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 as well as under Section 151 of the said Code.2. It appears that the petitioner, herein, preferred the aforesaid Civil Suit for specific performance of an agreement of purchase of a property from the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos. 6 and 8, herein, being the defendants in the aforesaid Civil Suit submitted an application contending that since the suit has been filed by the proposed Co-operative Society, it is not maintainable. It seems that with a view to meet with the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sabarmati Investment (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Guj)570
K.A. Puj, J.1. This reference is arising out of the cross-reference application filed by the assessee as well as by the Department before the Tribunal.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred to this Court for its opinion:(i) 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,61,805 made by ITO on account of accrued interest on the debentures of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.?'3. Similarly, at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions are referred to this Court for its opinion:'(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee-company was not entitled to claim deduction of expenses of Rs. 23,088 under Section 57(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in approving reference to and reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »