Gujarat Court April 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Gautam Sarabhai Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003]263ITR602(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that no taxable gift or deemed gift under Section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act stands proved to have been made by the company in favour of Smt. Sarabhai and thereby deleting the same ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. The assessee-private limited company was assessed for the said year under Section 15(3) of the Act. Notice was issued under Section 16(1) on the assessee-company in respect of the waiver of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,67,500 as payable by Smt. Giraben Sarabhai to the housing society as contribution in respect of apartments Nos. A/91 and A/ 101 and garage space No. 19 as well as an amount of Rs. 4,000 deposited by the housing society with the Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Civil Suit No. 531/5728 of 1965 by ...
Tag this Judgment!Jehangir Marzban Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1835
C.K. Buch, J.1. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned P.P. Mr. Oza for the State. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.1-A. This application is filed by the applicant-accused under Section 439 of Cri.Pro.Code for releasing him on bail in connection with I. C.R. No. 169 of 1995 registered at Shahpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 25-11-1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 201 of I.P.C. and under Sections 25(1A), (1-AA), 1B, 3 and 29 of the Arms Act and Section 9 of the Explosive Act.2. Undisputedly, the applicant is in judicial custody since 7-12-1995 in connection with the aforesaid offences. He has been charge-sheeted along with other co-accused on 26-11-1996. Initially, the case of the present applicant and the co-accused was committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. to the Court of Sessions by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City, but after hearing the application preferred praying discharge...
Tag this Judgment!Cgt Vs. Gautam Sarabhai Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN315(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 26 of the Gift Tax Act, 19 58 :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that no taxable gift or deemed gift under section 4(c) of the G.T. Act stands proved to have been made by the company in favour of Smt. Sarabhai and thereby deleting the same ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1969-70. The assessee-Private Limited Company was assessed for the said year under section 15(3) of the Act. Notice was issued under section 16(1) on the assessee company in respect of the waiver of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,67,500 as payable by Smt. Giraben Sarabhai to the housing society as contribution in respect of apartment Nos. A/91 and A/101 and garage space No. 19 as well as an amount of Rs. 4,000 deposited by the housing society with the Small Causes Court, Bombay in civil suit No. 531/5728 of 1965 by the housin...
Tag this Judgment!Ritaben Ashokbhai Shah Vs. Sanjay Kanubhai Sheth and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC432; [2004]122CompCas347(Guj); (2003)3GLR2076
D.H. Waghela, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed with a prayer to quash the complaint filed by the original-complainant, who is the respondent No. 1 herein. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 875 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad, and after recording of statement on oath, order dated 9-5-2001 was made to register the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) and to issue summons to the original accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are alleged to be related as the husband and wife. This application is filed only by the accused No. 1, who is the wife. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused persons had dealings of shares with the complainant, and towards the amounts due from them, a cheque of Rs. 6,62,868-06 ps. was issued by the accused No. 2 and the same had been returned with the remarks 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Then, af...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kiritkumar Ponjalal Barot
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR3656; (2003)IIILLJ247Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.M. Dagli for the petitioner and Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for respondent-workman. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent-workman. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today itself.2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority in Case No. 12 of 2001 dated September 6, 2001 whereunder the petitioner has been directed by the Controlling Authority to pay to the respondent-workman an amount of Rs. 3,01,881.00 within thirty days. This order of the Controlling Authority was also challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal No. 46 of 2001 and the Appellate Authority has confirmed the said order passed by the Controlling Authority and has directed the petitioner to pay the said amount to th...
Tag this Judgment!Makwana Harishbhai Govindbhai Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj291
ORDERJayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Desai, learned AGP for the respondent authorities, waives service of notice of rule.2. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 20-2-2003 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department of the State Government whereby the revision has been dismissed on the ground of delay.3. Mr. Desai, learned AGP, at the outset, submitted that when the Secretary passed the order, the affidavit of the petitioner could not be considered by the officer and, therefore, the same is not considered and he further states that let there be the direction to decide the revision application on merits.4. The party-in-person who is present has no objection if such course is adopted.5. Hence it appears that the Special Secretary has committed error apparent on the face of record in not considering the affidavit filed by party-in-person who had explained delay and had made out the case for condoning the delay...
Tag this Judgment!Dungarbhai Dahyabhai Parmar Vs. Ashoka Cotsyan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2409
H.K. Rathod, J.Nirbalki Ladai Balwan Se, Yeh Kahani Hai Diye Ki Aur Toofan Ki.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. T. K. Jhala for Mr. Yagnik for the applicant original respondent and Mr. Chauhan for Mr. Patel for the opponent original petitioner. Original petitioner has filed the aforesaid petition challenging the order passed by the Labour Court under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in T. Application No. 432 of 1990 under Section 79 of the B.I.R. Act, 1946 wherein the Labour Court concerned has granted reinstatement with full back wages for the intervening period in favour of the workman. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the Industrial Court under Section 84 of the B.I.R. Act, 1946 by filing Appeal No. 11 of 1997 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Industrial Court concerned on 13-1-1998. On 14-12-1999, this Court has issued Rule and notice as to interim relief was also issued by making it returnable on 24-12-1999. Thereafter, on 29-2-2000,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ashok Raje Gaekwad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Guj)14; [2004]267ITR54(Guj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under the provisions of Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee (HUF) despite its being an HUF is entitled to benefit of section 7(4) of the Act in respect of property known as 'Dhairya Prasad'? '2. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family and the relevant assessment years were 1979-80 and 1981-82. The dispute centers around the valuation of the building known as 'Dhairya Prasad', which belonged to the assessee-HUF. The case of the assessee was that the conditions mentioned in Section 7(4) were fulfilled and, therefore, the benefit of this provision should be allowed to the assessee in respect of the said house. The Wealth-tax Officer, however, negatived the claim on the ground that at no time in the past, the assessee had claimed this p...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Ashok Raje Gaekwad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN272(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under the provisions of section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee (HUF) despite its being an HUF is entitled to benefit of section 7(4) of the Act in respect of property known as Dhairya Prasad?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the relevant assessment years were 1979-80 and 1981-82. The dispute centers around the valuation of the building known as 'Dhairya Prasad', which belonged to the assessee-HUF. The case of the assessee was that the conditions mentioned in section 7(4) were fulfilled and therefore, the benefit of this provision should be allowed to the assessee in respect of the said house. The Wealth Tax Officer, however, negatived the claim on the ground that at no time in the past, the assessee had ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Filters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Guj)608; [2003]264ITR21(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J.1.The Tribunal, Ahmemdabad Bench 'A' has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.'At the instance of the assessee : R.A. No. 333/Ahd/1989 (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that scrutiny fees of Rs. 45,000 paid to GIIC for obtaining a loan for the purchase of machinery and extension of building was not allowable revenue expenditure ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the fees of Rs. 4,350 paid to M/s Dixit Consultants for preparing a report in connection with the loan from GSFC/GIIC for manufacturing pumps and valves was not allowable revenue expenditure ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas right in holding that the amount of Rs. 10,000 paid to M/s Parekh Jazal &Co.; in connection with the above loan of Rs. 60, lakhs from. GIIC ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »