Gujarat Court November 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. PravIn and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)213; [2005]274ITR534(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The CIT, Gujarat-IV, Ahmedabad, the applicant herein, has sought the opinion of this Court on the following five questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dt. 21st Feb., 1986, in ITA No. 1576/Ahd/1984 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal are right in view in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,11,015 as made by the ITO on account of suppression of stock of steel rounds ?(2) Whether, when the ITO with due approval of IAC had made the addition of Rs. 1,11,015 as unaccounted value of closing stock, the said amount of Rs. 1,11,015 was required to be deleted ?(3) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the addition of Rs. 1,11,015 as made by the ITO is not justified is correct in law and sustainable from material on record ?(4) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that addition of Rs. 4,16,932 cannot be justified under Sectio...
Cit Vs. P. PravIn and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN210(Guj)
A.A. Mehta, JThe CIT, Gujarat-IV, Ahmedabad, the applicant herein, has sought the opinion of this court on the following five questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 21-2-1986, in ITA No. 1576/Ahd/1984:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the CIT(A) and Tribunal are right in view in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,11,015 as made by the Income Tax Officer on account of suppression of stock of steel rounds ?(2) Whether, when the Income Tax Officer with due approval of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had made the addition of Rs. 1,11,015 as un-accounted value of closing stock, the said amount of Rs. 1,11,015 was required to be deleted ?(3) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the addition of Rs. 1,11,015 as made by the Income Tax Officer is not justified is correct in law and sustainable from material on record (4) Whether the Tribunal i...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Advance Construction Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)127; [2005]275ITR30(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This reference has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ('the Act') seeking opinion on the following four questions :'[1] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act and thereby restoring the order passed by the ITO ? [2] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee company is an industrial company? [3] Whether, the Tribunal has not erred in law in allowing the claim of the assessee with regard to the receipt of Rs. 11,78,950/- as being provision for contingencies ? [4] When Rs. 11,78,950/- is a receipt by the assessee from the contractors in the course of carrying on of business, whether the Tribunal's order to exclude the same is vitiated in law by irrelevant considerations on the basis of the so called standard accounting ...
Emmerich Jaegar Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN203(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.The following two questions of law have been referred to the court for opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that retention remuneration received y t e assessee in foreign currency from his foreign employer was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under article 14 of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Austria ?'2. The assessee-applicant was a foreign technician under the employment of M/s. Vereinigte Osterreichische Eiseh, a foreign company. The assessee was deputed for rendering technical services/on-spot clarification to M/s. Gujarat State Fertilisers Co. Ltd. (hereinafter refer...
Emmerich Jaegar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)57; [2005]274ITR125(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following two questions of law have been referred to the Court for opinion by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under s. 256(1) of the IT Act (the Act) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that retention remuneration received by the assessee in foreign currency from his foreign employer was liable to be included in the total income of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under art, 14 of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Austria ?'2. The assessee-applicant was a foreign technician under the employment of M/s Vereinigte Osterreichische Eiseh, a foreign company. The assessee was deputed for rendering technical services/on-spot clarification to M/s Gujarat State Fertilisers Co. Ltd. (GSFC) under the terms of agreement between GSFC and M/s V...
Ongc Labour Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR461]; (2005)3GLR1941
R.M. Doshit, J.1. This group of petitions have been preferred by the ONGC Labour Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are preferred for the benefit of some 500 members of Gram Rakshak Dal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Dal') who have been assigned the duties of security guard for the purpose of protection of oil wells situated at different sites in Mehsana district under the Project Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Commission [now a body corporate known as Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation')].2. The Union has claimed that the Gram Dal Jawans engaged as security guard as aforesaid should be treated as the employees of the Corporation and be given the status and consequential reliefs as such.3. In Special Civil Application No. 6406/1991 the Union has also prayed for an enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (her...
Cit Vs. Advance Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN61(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.This reference has been preferred by the CIT under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking opinion on the following four questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby restoring the order passed by the Income Tax Officer ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee-company, is an industrial company (3) Whether the Tribunal has not erred in law in allowing the claim of the assessee with regard to the receipt of Rs. 11,78,950 as being provision for contingencies (4) When Rs. 11,78,950 is a receipt by the assessee from the contractors in the course of carrying on of business, whether the Tribunals order to exclude the same is vitiated in law by irrelevant considerations on the basis of the so-calle...
Jayantilal Sanubhai Tailor Vs. Ralchem Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1218
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. On 1st October, 2004, this Court issued Rule, returnable on 20th October, 2004 and in the meantime, directed the Office to pay the amount of Rs.65,400=00, deposited by the opponent, to the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant by an account payee cheque in the name of the applicant, Jayantilal Sanubhai Tailor, on or before 6th October, 2004. It is reported that this order directing the Office to pay the amount is challenged by filing a Letters Patent Appeal and stay is granted.2. Mr. R.P. Mankad, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, submitted that he is pressing for the relief, prayed for in Clause 6(B), which reads as under: 'Be please to direct the respondent herein to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the ID Act from the date of Award (16-4-2003) and make the payment of last drawn wages to the applicant herein during the pendency of the Special Civil Application No.15081 of 2003.'Mr.Mankad further submitted that the Special Civil Ap...
Vinodkumar Rajabhai Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1274
M.S. Shah, J.1. The petition challenges inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Physics in Gujarat Education Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) at Government Arts, Science & Commerce Colleges.2. The Gujarat Public Service Commission ('the GPSC' for brevity) issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Physics in Gujarat Education Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) at Government Arts, Science & Commerce Colleges. 38 posts were advertised, out of which 3 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste Candidate. By notice dated 9.6.2000, the GPSC published the select list and the waiting list. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's name was kept at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list. The candidates in the select list as well as in the waiting list were also individually informed by separate letter dated 22.6.2000. In the said ...
Bhanuben L. Chovatiya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1411; [2005(106)FLR770]
M.S. Shah, J.1. The petition challenges inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Sociology in Gujarat Education Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) at Government Arts, Science & Commerce Colleges.2. The Gujarat Public Service Commission ('the GPSC' for brevity) issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Sociology in Gujarat Education Service Class-II (Collegiate Branch) at Government Arts, Science & Commerce Colleges. 19 posts were advertised, out of which 9 posts were reserved for SC/ST/SEBC candidates and the remaining 10 posts were for open merit candidates. By notice dated 22.9.2000, the GPSC published the select list and the waiting list. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's name was kept at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list. The candidates in the select list as well as in the waiting list were also individually informed by separate letters dated 25.9.2000. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »