Gujarat Court January 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ajitkumar Singh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR952
H.K. Rathod, J.1.Present petition is directed by the Union of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.459 / 2002 dated 30th September, 2003 whereby, the tribunal has quashed the orders of competent authority and further directed the petitioner to promote the respondent from 1st December, 1995 from the date his juniors were promoted and further directed to complete the exercise within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner had moved one Misc. Application No.700 / 2003 for extension of time which was also rejected by the Tribunal on 1st December, 2003.2.The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :The respondent was recruited on the basis of combined Civil Service Examination 1990 on 1st January, 1992. After undergoing the training period, the respondent was posted as an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at Allahabad on 13th April, 1993. Thereafter, he was...
Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Kanji Natha Karmata
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1226]
Bhawani Singh, C.J. 1. Through this Letters Patent Appeal, order of thelearned Single Judge dated 1.7.1994 passed in SpecialCivil Application NO. 1832 of 1993 has been challenged.Kanji Natha Karmata (Petitioner) applied for appointmenton compassionate ground, his father having died while inservice on 31.10.1970. At that time, the petitioner wastwo months old. Mother of the petitioner applied in 1988to the Port Officer, Gujarat Maritime Board, Veraval.Thereafter, she applied again in April, 1989 followed byanother attempt dated 25.3.1988. Ultimately, thepetitioner got communication that his request cannot beaccepted, having applied after prescribed time limit.The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 1832of 1993 seeking direction against the respondents toappoint him on compassionate ground. By the impugnedjudgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitionand directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner oncompassionate ground against the first available vacancyunder ...
Nasir Ganibhai Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(97)ECC40
D.P. Buch, J. 1. The appellants above namaed have preferred this appeal under sub-section (2) of section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') challenging the judgment and conviction order dated 5.10.1998 recorded by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Court No.16, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.294/97 under which the learned Trial Judge convicted the present appellants for offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Acts, 1985.(for short, 'the said Act'). However, both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 29 read with section 21 of the said Act. 2. In fact four accused persons faced trial in the aforesaid case. However, accused no.3 and 4 in the said sessions case were ordered to be acquitted from all the offences for which they stood charged before the said court and, therefore, the original accused No.1 and 2 have filed this appeal as appellants no.1 and 2. 3. The fa...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Rameshchandra Ravjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Guj)543; [2004]269ITR146(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. All these references involve the following common question of law which has been referred to us for our opinion in respect of the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that on reconstitution of partnership firm, where the existing partner surrendered a portion of his share and the incoming partner brought in capital, the transaction did not amount to gift?' 2. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee.3. The brief facts are that the firm M/s Patel Brass Works, Rajkot, was constituted with the following partners as per partnership deed dt. 4th Nov., 1975:1. Shri Ravjibhai Chhaganlal 45%2. Shri Gandalal Bavalal 20%3. Shri Rameshchandra Harjibhai 35%There was a change in the constitution when two trusts were taken into partnership as per partnership deed dt. 25th Nov., 1977 and the...
Cgt Vs. Rameshchandra Ravjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN424(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. All these references involve the following common question of law which has been referred to us for our opinion in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that on reconstitution of partnership firm, where the existing partner surrendered a portion of his share and the incoming partner brought in capital, the transaction did not amount to gift?2. We have heard Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent assessee.3. The brief facts are that the firm M/s. Patel Brass Works. Rajkot was constituted with the following partners as per partnership deed dated 4-11-1975:1. Shri Ravjibhai Chhaganlal 45%2. Shri Gandalal Bavalal 20%3. Shri Rameshchandra Harjibhai 35%There was a change, in the constitution when two trusts were taken into partnership as per partnership deed dated 25-11-1977 and the s...
The Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Shri G.K. Swarup
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)402; [2005]275ITR137(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion:-'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to make valuation of shares of Private Limited Company in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules and not in accordance with the general break up method?'2. On the date of his death i.e. on 18.2.1979, the deceased had 206 shares of a certain private limited company. The accountable person declared the value of these shares at the rate of Rs.1553/- per share. The computation was made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty did not accept the valuation made by the accountable person. According to him, the valuation should not be made in accordance with the principle laid down in the said Rule. He made addition of Rs.10,000/- to the value of land owned by the compan...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amod Stamping
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Guj)158; [2005]274ITR176(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion for the assessment year 1989-90:-'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the deduction under Section 80-I should be given without any deduction under Section 80-HH from the total income?'2. We have heard Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee.3. At the hearing of this reference, our attention is invited to the decision dated 13/14th June 2001 of another Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Reference No.282 of 1985 wherein this Court examined the scheme of the provisions of Section 80HH and Section 80J and after considering the legislative history, the object of granting deductions under the above provisions, the manner in which the deduction is to be calculated and th...
Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel Vs. Dineshbhai Achalanand Rathi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC220; 2005CriLJ431
C.K. Buch, J. 1. This Court while issuing notice for final disposal on 13.1.2004, notice was made returnable on 28.01.2004. However, the matter has not been listed and so today, at the request of ld. counsel Mr. Dave appearing for the petitioner, papers of this matter are called from the Registry and matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by ld. APP Ms. Nandini Joshi for respondent No.2 State. Respondent No.1 complainant Mr. Rathi is also present in the Court and he waives service of Rule.3. That the petitioner came to be tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as the N.I.Act) and by impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 31.1.2000 passed by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.19, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.272/1997, and was sentenced to suffer S/I for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ I/d to undergo further S/I for 3 months and also to pay compensation of ...
C.i.T. Vs. Trimurti Builders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: [2004]269ITR225(Guj)
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA) 1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' ('the Tribunal' for short), by means of this reference, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following questions of law, for our opinion, for the assessment year 1983-84:-'1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of Section 186 (2) of the Income-tax Act were applicable in the instant case though the order of the I.T.O. in effect was an order refusing to grant registration and not cancelling the registration?2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of Section 186 (2) are applicable and that the requirements of the said Section are not complied with?'2. The respondent assessee is a firm treated as Unregistered Firm (URF) by the Income-tax Officer vid...
Cit Vs. Trimurti Builders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2004
Reported in: [2004]137TAXMAN344(Guj)
A.M. Kapadia, J.In exercise of the powers conferred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by means of this reference, at the instance of the revenue, has referred the following questions of law, for our opinion, for the assessment year 1983-84:-'1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of section 186(2) of the Income Tax Act were applicable in the instant case though the order of the ITO in effect was an order refusing to grant registration and not cancelling the registration 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of section 186(2) are applicable and that the requirements of the said section are not complied with ?'2. The respondent assessee is a firm treated as Unregistered Firm (hereinafter referred to as URF) by the ITO vide o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »