Gujarat Court December 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.
Ramesh Ganpatrao Bendbar Vs. Jivanlal Mangaldas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2250; (2005)2GLR1221
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the Food Inspectors attached to Vadodara Municipal Corporation challenging the judgments and orders of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents.1.1. Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1989 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th July, 1988 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Vadodara, in favour of the respondents in Criminal Case No. 2810 of 1982. Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1990 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13th February, 1990 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Vadodara, in favour of the respondents in Criminal Case No. 2017 of 1984. Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 1990 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th June, 1989 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Vadodara, in favour of the respondents in Criminal Case No. 13835 of 1984. The respondents in all the appeals were pr...
NitIn P. Shah Alias Modi Vs. Dy. C.i.T.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Guj)306; [2005]276ITR411(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. In Special Civil Application No. 3605 of 2004 while issuing notice the court directed that the said petition shall be heard with Tax Appeal Nos. 539 of 2003 and 90 of 2004. Accordingly all these matters, which are interconnected, have been heard together and are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.TAX APPEAL No. 539 OF 2003.2. The appellant is the assessee who has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 10/7/2003 by proposing the following questions of law stated to arise out of ITA No. 3910/AHD/2002 for assessment year 1997-98 :'(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 67.75 lacs placed as deposit with L.T. Shroff Group is unexplained investment of the appellant and the same is not covered by the disclosure made by the appellant under VDIS ?(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holdin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pratik Prints
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)361; [2005]274ITR289(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', Ahmedabad has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the applicant - Revenue.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the decision of the CIT (A), Surat, holding that investment allowance could not be withdrawn Under Section 155(4A) in the case of the assessee?'2. The Assessment Years are 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the corresponding accounting periods are the Financial Years ended on 31st March 1977 and 31st March 1978. The assessee, a partnership firm, was granted investment allowance of Rs. 1,55,293=00 and Rs. 81,000=00 for Assessment Years 1977-78 and 1978-79 respectively. However, the assessing officer, acting under provisions of Section 155(4A) of the Act, withdrew the investment allowance originally granted on the ground that, as the firm was dissolved on 31st March 1978, ...
Vallubhai Kukabhai Boliya Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1225
Jayant Patel, J.1. All the matters are finally heard on the question of alternative remedy available to the petitioners for challenging the orders passed by the authority under The Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement And Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') read with Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the common question is involved, all the matters are being dealt with by the common judgment.2. Special Civil Application Nos. 14377/03, 15069/03 and 15066/03 are preferred by the petitioners challenging the orders dated August 29, 2003 passed by the respondent No. 2-Dist.Collector, Bhavnagar under the Ordinance and Special Civil Application No. 17421/03 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 14.3.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Dist.Collector, Bhavnagar under the Ordinance and the Special Civil Application No. 15343/03 is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order, dat...
Cit Vs. Pratik Prints
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN126(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', Ahmedabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the instance of the applicant-revenue:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the decision of the CIT (A), Surat, holding that investment allowance could not be withdrawn under section 155(4A) in the case of the assessee ?'2. The assessment years are 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the corresponding accounting periods are the financial years ended on 31-3-1977, and 31-3-1978. The assessee, a partnership firm, was granted investment allowance of Rs. 1,55,293 and Rs. 81,000 for assessment years 1977-78, and 1978-79, respectively. However, the assessing officer, acting under provisions of section 155(4A) of the Act, withdrew the investment allowance originally granted on the ground that as the firm was dissolved on 31-3-1978, the asse...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmi Talkies
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Guj)334; [2005]275ITR125(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', Ahmedabad, has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT. Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad :'Whether, on the facts, circumstances and legal positions, the assessee is entitled to allowance of an amount of Rs. 2,49,508 on account of renovation of the theatre, stamp duty, interest payment, etc. as an admissible deduction as revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1976-77 and the relevant accounting period is S.Y. 2031. The assessee, a registered firm, carried on business of exhibiting cinema films. During the accounting period an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,17,285 was claimed under the head theatre renovation and repairing expenses. The assessee also claimed expenditure on account of stamp duty, interest, etc. amounting to Rs. 32,221. The AO held that the aforesaid expenditure did not amount to revenue expenditure and was capital in nature as it brought into existen...
Pariya Gram Panchayat Vs. Development Commissioner
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1092
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The petitioners have by way of this petition challenged the order dated 11th June, 2002 passed by the Taluka Development Officer, whereby, respondent no. 1 under the provisions of Section 253 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 has passed an order of supersession of the Pariya Gram Panchayat, on the ground that the Panchayat failed to pass the budget for the year 2002-03.2. The facts of the case as they emerge from the record of the petition are that the meeting was called by the Panchayat for approval of budget for the year 2002-03 on 26th March, 2002. However, the same was not convened and, therefore, the budget was not passed. Subsequently, on 30th March, 2002, an attempt was made to pass the budget, but since eight members were present, the budget could not be passed. The petitioner submitted that thereafter a special meeting was convened, wherein in the presence of the members, who had supported the budget a Resolution dated 30th March, 2003, was passed, whereby ...
B.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj203
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issues are involved in all these three Special Civil Applications and since the prayers made therein are almost same and similar, all the three Special Civil Applications are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. At the joint request of the parties, all the three matters are finally heard at length at the admission stage and they are being finally disposed of.3. All the three petitions are filed by way of Public Interest Litigations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first petition, being Special Civil Application No. 14460 of 2004, is argued at length by all the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Applications No. 14813 and 14819 of 2004 are also permitted to make their submissions as interveners. The facts and submissions are mainly taken from that first petition.4. The petitioner No. 2 is claiming to be a NGO involved, inter alia, in the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manoharsinhji P. Jadeja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)223; (2005)3GLR2218; [2006]281ITR19(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax authorities were not justified in working out capital gains of Rs. 41,11,414/- and including the same in the total income of the assessee ?'2. The respondent - assessee is an individual. The Assessment Year is 1983-84 and the relevant previous year is the Financial Year ended on 31-03-1983. The assessee inherited property known as 'Ranjit Vilas Palace' along with appurtenant and adjacent lands situated at Rajkot on the death of his father, Shri Pradumansinhji, on 09-11-1973. It appears that for Assessment Years 1974-75 to 1977-78 certain tax demands along with estate duty payable on death of his father were ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.C. Shah and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)226; [2005]274ITR217(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (the Act), at the instance of the CIT, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad :'1. 'Whether the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the order made by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee should be assessed in the status of BOI ?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30th June, 1981. The assessee filed its return of income in the status of BOI and the AO accepted the same while framing assessment under Section 143(3) on 29th Feb., 1984. The CIT initiated revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act after issuing show-cause notice to the assessee. The CIT did not accept the explanation tendered by the assessee and set aside the assessment order directing the AO to adopt the status of the assessee as that of AOP and levy tax in accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »