Gujarat Court July 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Vijaykunverba
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)397; [2004]265ITR111(Guj)
ORDERNet wealth--Income-tax refund and lease rent not included in net wealth--Assessee following cash system of accountingCatch Note:Though the assessee had to recover lease rent and income-tax refund, the said amount had not been included in her wealth shown in the return of wealth--After the assessee was assessed, the Commissioner exercised his powers under section 25(2) and directed the assessing officer to include the aforestated two assets in the net wealth of the assessee on the ground that the said amount had become due and payable to the assessee on the date of valuation--Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was maintaining her books of accounts on cash basis and, therefore, the total amount referred to hereinabove could not have been included in the wealth of the assessee--The Tribunal allowed the appeal--Was not justified in doing so--Income-tax refund and lease rent had accrued to the assessee on valuation date, therefore, Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Chemical Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Guj)288; [2004]265ITR273(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in finding that tax was avoided without ascertaining whether there is any revenue loss on account of non-inclusion of the income in question in the assessee's assessment and its inclusion in the assessment of the sister concerns ?'2. Learned advocate Shri J.P. Shah has appeared for the applicant-assessee whereas senior standing counsel Shri M.R, Bhatt has appeared for the respondent-revenue.3. The facts giving rise to the reference, in a nutshell, are as under :4. The assessee is a partnership firm manufacturing chemicals, The assessee mainly manufactures sodium bisulphate and sodium sulphate. For the relevant assessment year total sales was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sarala Dhruvakumar Shukla
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Guj150
M.S. Shah, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application No. 458 of 2001 challenging the decision of the appellants herein, i.e. Post Master General, Ahmedabad and Sub-Post Master, LG Hospital Road Post Office, Maninagar, Ahmedabad under the provisions of the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The learned Single Judge held that the appellants were estopped from treating the account as a single holder account upon the death of the husband of the first petitioner.2. The first respondent herein-original first petitioner and her late husband jointly invested Rs. 2,04,000/- in the post office monthly income scheme on 15.11.1994. The second respondent herein - original second petitioner was shown as their nominee. When the husband of the first petitioner expired on 27.7.1995, an application was made by the first petitioner to substitute the name of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashima Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1768
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Vakil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 waives service of notice of Rule. Mr. D.N. Patel, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The short facts of the case are that on 14-11-2000 respondent No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of Rs. 9,14,520/- should not be imposed upon the petitioner towards non-utilisation of the quota extended for shipment during October/December, 1997. The petitioner submitted the reply to the show-cause notice on 11-12-2000, and contended, inter alia, that the petitioner could not utilise the total quantity of extended quota as some of the buyers had at the last moment cancelled their orders and some of them failed to open covering letter of guarantee for orders placed by them. Ultimately, on 12-12-2000 the order came to be passed for forfeiture. The petitioner carried...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pent Ocean Steam Ships Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR294(Gujarat)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order passed by the nominee of the Chief Justice (hereinafter referred to as 'the designated Judge') in O.J. M.C.A. No.61 of 2002 on 17-01-2003 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996'). 2. The petitioner is the Union of India, owing the Eastern, Western and Southern Railway. The petition has been preferred through the General Manager, Western Railway. The respondent is a Private Limited Shipping Company. Heard Mr.S.N.Shelat, the learned Advocate General appearing with Mr.M.G.Nagarkar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.J.R.Nanavati appearing with Mr.A.R.Thacker on behalf of the respondent. The petition is taken up for final disposal with consent of both the sides. RULE. Mr.Nanavati waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. It appears that the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Vundravandas Pitambardas and ors. Vs. Upadhyaya or His Successor in th ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1714
J.N. Bhatt, Actg. C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the action of the respondent-authority in not permitting them to carry on their business in the wooden cabins constructed by them on a land of the Panchayat. Pursuant to the resolution of respondent No. 3, the then Nagar Panchayat, Talala (now Gram Panchayat, Talala), dated 24-4-2008, the land, on the rental basis, was given to the petitioners, for the purpose of construction of cabins, on certain terms and conditions. The extent and area of the land allotted for that purpose is admeasuring 12' x 12' insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned and 10' x 8' insofar as the rest of the petitioners are concerned. The decision of respondent No. 3 was pursuant to the applications made by the petitioners for the grant and allotment of land on rental basis.2. The petitioners have, inter alia, contended that they are paying rent regularly to the Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Bakul Tripathi Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1667
J.N. Bhatt, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders and communication at Annexure-C, E and F and amended Ordinances at Annexure D-2 and D-3 as illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and of no effect whatsoever with a further prayer to treat him as continuing in service till the end of the academic term beginning in November, 1988 and ending in April, 1989, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. A few material facts may be stated at the outset. The petitioner's birth-date is 27-11-1928 and he was to attain the age of 60 years on 27-11-1988. According to the petitioner, in Commerce faculty, under Ordinance 75 terms are expressly prescribed. The first term is beginning on 15th June and ending on 20th October. From 20th October to 10th November is Winter vacation and the second term begins on 11th November and ends on 7th April of every academic year, and from 7th April to 14th June is Summer vacation. In this context, it is stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanjibhai Somabhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR563
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. Rule on each of these petitions. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Harsha Devani waives service of notice of Rule in all the matters. The learned Advocate Mr. K.M. Patel waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 3 in all the matters. As the point involved is a short one and the learned counsel for both the sides request us for taking up the matters for final hearing, we have heard them.2. In all these petitions, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has made a composite order dated 5th April, 2003 by which he has returned the applications made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference to be made against the award. It is surprising that the Land Acquisition Officer, instead of making an order on the applications, has returned them for which there is no provision under the law. It was incumbent on the officer concerned to make orders on the applications which were made by the parties whose lands were acquired and by whom ...
Tag this Judgment!Snehalata M. Gaekwad Vs. State of Guj
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)3GLR2616
Ravi R.Tripathi, J. 1. The present Special Civil Application is filed challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Vadodara in Ceiling Revision No.5 of 1988 dated 19.5.1989, whereby the Assistant Collector was pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Mamlatdar & Agricultural Tribunal in Ceiling Case No.5/76 dated 31.8.1988 and was pleased to declare the land admeasuring 7 acres 38 gunthas as a 'surplus land'. The order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.TEN.B.A.541/ 89 by judgement and order dated 15.3.1991. The Revision Application was dismissed holding that the Assistant Collector is right in holding that if the applicant is not able to use the land as agricultural land, he can surrender the same as a surplus land.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a holder of land admeasuring 35 acres, 15 gunthas bearing Survey No.1139 of Village Kumad, Taluka/ District Vadodara. It is the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Sunni Muslim Samaj Vs. Pandya Manishanker Dhanjibhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)1GLR540
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This is an application moved by the newly joined respondent No. 11 in Spl.C.A. No. 12594 of 2002. This application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeks vacation of ad-interim relief granted on 30-12-2002 in terms of Para 21(C) of the memorandum, of petition.2. The applicants moved two Civil Applications on 24-2-2003. Civil Application No. 1606 of 2003 was filed at the behest of the applicant-Trust praying that the applicant be joined as respondent No. 11 in the main petition. The said application viz., Civil Application No. 1606 of 2003 came to be granted by this Court on 30-4-2003 and the applicants were permitted to be joined as necessary parties as respondent No. 11 in the main petition.3. On the same day viz., 30-4-2003, this Court (Coram : Jayant Patel. J.), passed the following order in the present application :'Since the applicants are impleaded as party pursuant, to the order passed today in C.A. No. 1606 of 2003 in Spl.C.A No. 12594 of 2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »