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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pure Beverages Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]142STC522(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the State Act') for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the applicant-State of Gujarat :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms and conditions of the contract between the present opponent, M/s. Pure Beverages Ltd., and its vendee, the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal is justified in law in treating the sale of goods of Rs. 8,58,343 as inter-State sale as defined under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and not local sales as envisaged under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969?'2. The respondent-assessee is a limited company engaged in manufacture of cold drinks. For the period from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977, the respondent-assessee was provisionally assessed by the Sales Tax Officer (3), Ahmedabad District, Division 1, Ahmedabad, for the relevant period. Since the dues...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. C.D.R. Laxmidevi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)222; [2005]274ITR257(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'C', has referred the following question of law, at the instance of the CWT, Rajkot, under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing claim of exemption under Section 5(l)(xxa) of the Act in respect of shares of various companies worth Rs. 10,11,686 ?'2. The respondent-assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(l)(xxa) of the Act in respect of shares worth Rs. 10,11,686 for asst. yr. 1981-82. The corresponding valuation date is 31st March, 1981. According to the WTO, the said exemption was not allowable because the shares in question were held by the assessee as a dealer. That business assets were to be valued under Section 7(1) of the Act or under Section 7(2)(a) of the Act after making adjustments under Rules 2A to 2G of the WT Rules, 1957. The AO, further held that the shares in question were not directly purchased by the assessee from the company and do not pertain to ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jupiter Construction Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)292; [2005]274ITR454(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), made by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', at the behest of the CIT, Gujarat-III, Ahmedabad. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a registered firm and the relevant accounting year is the year ended on 31st March, 1983. It appears from the facts recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee-firm was brought into existence on 2nd June, 1980, wherein apart from three individuals, viz., Shri Hasmukhlal Chinubhai, Shri Bipinchandra Mafatlal and Shri Natwarlal Trikamlal the other three partners were trustees of private trusts, viz., Shri Upendra Chinubhai, trustee of Hetal Trust, Smt. Smruti Hasmukhbhai, trustee of Bijal Trust and Smt. Shantaben Chinubhai, trustee of Shalin Trust. The said firm was granted registration under s. 185 of the...
Cwt Vs. C.D.R. Laxmidevi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN600(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'C', has referred the following question of law, at the instance of the CWT, Rajkot, under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')'Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing claim of exemption under section 5(1)(xxa) of the Act in respect of shares of various companies worth Rs. 10,11,686?'2. The respondent-assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxa) of the Act in respect of shares worth Rs. 10,11,686 for assessment year 1981-82. The corresponding valuation date is 31-3-1981. According to the Wealth Tax Officer, the said exemption was not allowable because the shares in question were held by the assessee as a dealer. That business assets were to be valued under section 7(1) of the Act or under section 7(2)(a) of the Act after making adjustments under rule 2A to 2G of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957. The assessing officer, further held that the shares in question were not directly ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Shashiben
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Guj)140
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The board shows endorsement to the effect that notice has not been received back. However, in light of the view that the Court is inclined to take, it is not necessary to keep the matter pending, considering the fact that the reference is pertaining to 1993.2. The following three questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court Under Section 27(2) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act'), by the Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'C', at the instance of CWT, Gujarat IV, Ahmedabad :'(1) Whether the Tribunal has not reached an erroneous conclusion in law in holding that the land in question was agricultural in character, when for several reasons and in view of decisions of the Courts on the points, the conclusion was inescapable that the land had lost the character as agricultural ?(2) Whether, in view of the tests laid down by the several decisions including the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Sharifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim : [1982]136ITR621(Guj) and the de...
Haribhai Chanabhai Vora Vs. Keshubhai Haribhai Vora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Guj157; (2005)2GLR1747
M.R. Shah, J.1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 31.1.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jetpur below Exh.77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 2002 by which the learned trial Court has passed the order directing the petitioner No. 1 - original defendant No. 1 to remain present before the Government Hospital for his DNA test.2. The respondent herein - original plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 153 of 2002 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jetpur for declaration to the effect that the property in question is the ancestral property and he has right and title over the land in question. In the said suit, the petitioners original defendants appeared and filed the written statement and it was denied by petitioner No. 1 original defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff is his son. Considering the said stand in the written statement b...
Nanlabhai Kukabhai Rathwa Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1388
Akshay H. Mehta, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code thereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'] and also the consequential order of sentence directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment [RI] for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/=, in default to undergo further RI for two months. He has been convicted by the Ld. Addl. Judge & Fast Track Court Judge, Chhota Udepur, in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2003 by judgment dated 17th May, 2004.2. Facts constituting the present prosecution, in short, can be stated as under :-2.1. On the date of the incident i.e. 9th March, 2003 the informant and his elder brother Ramsing were going to their uncle's place at about 6.00 p.m. for settling the accounts with regard to wood. They were returning at about 6.45 p.m. At that time the present appellant alongwith one Gumanbhai Kukabhai Rathwa accosted them in the field of Bhimla Bhuraliya. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant darted an arrow at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›