Gujarat Court February 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. Hasmukhbhai P. Raijada
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-07-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR898]; (2004)2GLR921; (2004)IILLJ953Guj
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Rule. Service of Rule waived by learned counsels for the other side in both the petitions.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to hear both these petitions finally and dispose of the same [ Special Civil Applications Nos.15585/03 & 16201/03 ] by common order since they are directed against the same judgment dated 14.5.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (CAT) in Original Application No.360/2000 with M.A.No.118 / 2003, whereby the Tribunal has disallowed to initiate fresh inquiry against the concerned delinquent employee and Original Application is allowed and the order of punishment is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal has further directed to reinstate the concerned employee forthwith but held that the employee concerned shall not be entitled to back wages but the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement shall, however, be counted towards seniority and increment and in view...
Vazir Polymers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1338
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.10.2003/12.11.2003 (Annexure 'I') of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitioners' appeal and confirming the order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure 'G') of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and holding that the additional duty of customs is payable by the petitioner-unit.2. Petitioner No.1 is a unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone. The petitioner-unit manufactures regenerated polymers out of scrap or waste of goods falling within various Chapters including Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. Ordinarily, the units permitted to be set up in Kandla Special Economic Zone like the other Special Economic Zones in the country are to import raw materials without payment of customs duty, then manufacture finished products out of the raw material and export them out of the country. Un...
Thakkar Shantilal Mohanlal Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Guj272
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the RevenueTribunal made on 31.7.1989 in Appeal Ten. A.A. No.51/85 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and upholdingthe order of the Collector made on 29th March, 1985 insuo motu revision application no. 1/84-85 by which theCollector set aside the order dated 31.5.1983 of theAssistant Collector, granting permission to thepetitioner in respect of the sale transaction in questionunder the provisions of the second proviso to Section54(1) of the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement &Agricultural; Lands Ordinance, 1947, and revoking thecertificate dated 29.4.83 issued by the AssistantCollector showing that the petitioner was having annualincome of less than Rs. 5,000/-.2. As per the certificate dated 29.4.1983, a copy ofwhich is annexed at Annexure:A to the petition, theAssistant Collector, Dhangadhra had certified under Rule18 read with Section 54 of the said Ordinance that theincome of the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 5,000...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhanumati and Sons Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2004]268ITR193(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this group of references, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for our opinion for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85:-'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Act wherein he had held that the income of the period i.e. 16.11.1982 to 31.3.1983 is to be taxed in the assessment year 1984-85 since the assessee was not allowed to change the previous year?'2. The facts leading to filing of this group of references, briefly stated, are as under:-2.1 The assessees herein, 11 in number, were partners of CMC (India). The assessees derived share income from the profits of the said firm. The previous year of the firm was samvat year. Consequently as far as the share income of the said firm was concerned, the previous year of the assessees was samvat year. The firm came to be di...
Ezy Slide Fastners Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessme ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC293; [2004]122CompCas242(Guj); (2004)4CompLJ503(Guj); [2004]269ITR548(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Heard Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D. D. Vyas, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities on the question of interim relief.2. Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) which are analogoues to the provisions of Section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the decision of the apex court in ITO v. Budha Pictures : [1967]65ITR620(SC) the notice issued by the respondent-authorities on October 20, 2000 (annexure A) got exhausted and the said notice cannot now be acted upon to prevent the purchasers of the goods to be manufactured by the petitioner from paying the sale price thereof to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, the petitioner-company is registered as a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, ...
Mayooriben J. Thakore Vs. Gujarat Agro Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR8]; (2004)2GLR1707
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. This petition was heard finally and disposed of by the learned single Judge (Mr. Justice C.K. Thakkar, as he then was). Being aggrieved of that, the respondents had filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No.162 of 2000, which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 19th August 2003 (Coram: Mr. Justice B.J. Shethna & Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi) wherein paras 4 and 5 read thus:'4. On merits learned counsel Shri Mihir Thakore for the appellants argued the matter for a considerable time. While going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we found that the matter was practically decided ex parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the present appellants.5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned counsel Shri Mihir Thakore for the appellants and Senior Advocate Shri Maganbhai Barot appearing for Shri Hriday Buch for the respondent agreed that without assigning any reasons and expressing any opinion on th...
Cit Vs. Bhanumati and Sons Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Guj)526
ORDERApplicability of previous year of partner where assessing officer exercised discretion under section 176(1)Catch Note:The assessee is a partner of the firm who was having Samvat year as its previous year. The said firm was dissolved on 31-3-1983. In view of the discretion mentioned in section 176(1) the assessing officer assessed the firm for Samvat year 2038 ending on 15-11-1982 and also for subsequent period being from 16-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 both for assessment year 1983-84. Consequently, the assessee invoked section 3(1)(f) and his income was assessed for 1983-84 and 1984-85 for period from Samvat year 2038 ending on 15-11-1982 and from 16-11-1982 to 31-3-1983 respectively. The Commissioner invoking section 263 set aside the assessment of the assessee partner. The assessing officer having exercised the discretion permitted the firm to file returns for Samvat year 2038 and also for the subsequent period from 16-11-1982 to 31-3-1983, therefore, once the firm was allowed to file i...
Ezy Slide Fastners Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Guj)36
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. D.D. Vyas, learned standing counsel for the respondent-authorities on the question of interim relief.2. Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in view of the provisions of section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which are analogous to the provisions of section 46(5A) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and the decision of the Apex Court in ITO & Anr. v. Budha Pictures : [1967]65ITR620(SC) the notice issued by the respondent-authorities on 20-10-2000 (Annex. A), got exhausted and the said notice cannot now be acted upon to prevent the purchasers of the goods to be manufactured by the petitioner from paying the sale price thereof to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, the petitioner-company is registered as a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1270
1. Food Corporation of India - appellant No.2 ( hereinafter referred to as 'FCI') and Union of India appellant No.1 - the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 39(vi) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Act') against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 1990, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamnagar, in Civil Misc. Application No.111 of 1989 filed by parties under Sec.14 of the Arbitration Act making award as a rule of the court under sec.14 of the Act while Civil Misc.Application No.172/89 has been filed for challenging the award dated 7.6.89 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 33 of the Act which provides award to be contested by applicant read with sec.30 of the Act which provides grounds for setting aside the award.2. It may be noted that the learned Judge was pleased to allow Civil Misc.Application No.111/89 making award as a rule of the court whereas the learned Judge was pleased to reject Civil Misc.App...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Hemkunverben Kalyanji Ap of Late Kalyanj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Guj)532; [2005]275ITR635(Guj)
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 holding that the reopening was not justified in the present case since the High Court decision relied on by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty while issuing reopening notice, was not of a jurisdictional High Court and not binding to him ?'2. Upon the death of Kalyanji Bachulal, his wife Smt Hemkunverben Kalyanji offered for estate duty one half share of the deceased in the HUF consisting of the deceased and his wife i.e. the accountable person. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in his original assessment dated 15.10.1977 held that half the estate passed on the death of Kalyanji. Thereafter, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty issued notice dated 14.9.1978 for reopening the assessment on the ground that the deceased was the sole surviving co-parcener and, therefore, had the power to dispose ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »