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.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Lalitkumar Savjibhai, Ap of Vallabhji Ra ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Guj)620; [2004]270ITR195(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :-'(1) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to make valuation of the house property in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules ?(2) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that as regards the deduction of the debt of Rs.3,14,345/- there was no encumbrance or charge on the house property in question in respect of this debt and consequently deduction in respect of this debt would be allowable from the aggregate value of the property passing on death and not only from house property as contended by the department ?'2. The facts leading to this reference, as found in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal, are as under:-The name of the deceased was Shri Vallabhji Ratanshi. The date of his death was 22.10.1984. The deceased has constructed a house...
Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-ii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1224]; (2004)IIILLJ435Guj
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for therespondent waives services of rule. With the consent ofparties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The present petition is preferred by thepetitioner for challenging the legality and validity ofthe order dated 9.12.2003/12.12.2003 so far as it relatesto directing the petitioner-Company to serve its summonsupon 129 Contractors.3. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. K.S. Nanavatifor the petitioners and Mr. Mehta for the respondent.4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioneris that there is no power to compel the petitioner toserve the summons to the Contractor. Mr. K.S. Nanavatisubmitted that whatever details of the Contractorsavailable with the Company are given and the petitioneris also ready to give further details if they are in aposition to do so. It is further submitted that theContractors are impleaded as parties, and, therefore, itwill be for the concerned authority to effect the servicethrough prop...
Saurashtra Education Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Guj)295; [2005]273ITR139(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) at theinstance of the assessee, the following question has beenreferred for our opinion for assessment year 1981-82:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the assessee would be entitled toexemption as contemplated under Section 10(22) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a trust registered a publiccharitable trust on 10.1.1978. When the trust wasregistered on 10.1.1978 its objects were as under:-(a) To raise and/or improve the standard of educationof the students and for this purpose to run,conduct and/or manage Bal Mandirs, Kindergartens,primary schools, colleges, degree courses,secondary schools, high schools, higher secondaryschools, diploma courses, educational centres,libraries, reading rooms, and other institutionsfor imparting education. (b) To arrange and/or organise meetings, lectures,workshop classes, weekend courses, exhibitions,seminars, symposium and conferences with a viewto raise and/...
Municipal Borough of Talod Vs. Manubhai Khodidas Rajgor and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR56]
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Being aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 28th February, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No.2 of 1996, Talod Nagar Panchayat (as it then was) has preferred the present petition.2. Initially, Notice was issued by this Court on 11th January, 2002. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 9th August, 2002, this Court (Coram:P.B.Majmudar, J.) passed the following order:'In spite of notice of this Court, the respondent has not cared to appear before this Court. Rule returnable on 4th September, 2002. Meanwhile, execution and operation of the impugned Award is stayed on condition that the petitioner will comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act from the date of the Award. The concerned workman may file necessary affidavit as required by Section 17-B of the Act. On his filing such affidavit, the petitioner will comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and the benefi...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Lalitkumar Savjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN662(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to make valuation of the house property in accordance with rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules?2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that as regards the deduction of the debt of Rs. 3,14,345 there was no encumbrance or charge on the house property in question in respect of this debt and consequently deduction in respect of this debt would be allowable from the aggregate value of the property passing on death and not only from house property as contended by the department?'2. The facts leading to this reference, as found in the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal, are as under :The name of the deceased was Shri Vallabhji Ratanshi. The date of his death was 22-10-1984. The deceased has constructed a house and that...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Hemkunverben Kalyanji Ap of Late Ka ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: [2004]139TAXMAN143(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.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 coparcener and, therefore, had the power t...
Afrique Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR667
M.S. Shah, J.1. When this petition was filed on 18.6.2001, the petitioners had prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to give the petitioners refund of Rs.5,21,099/- alongwith interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the period from 31.1.1996 till the date of actual payment of the above amount. The petition was admitted after hearing the other side.2. When the petition has reached final hearing today, the learned counsel for both the sides state that the amount of Rs.5,21,099/- has already been paid to the petitioners on 30.6.2001. The dispute, therefore, now remains only about interest claimed by the petitioners on the aforesaid amount from 31.1.1996 till the date of payment i.e. till 31.6.2001.3. The facts leading to filing of this petition, as averred by the petitioners and briefly stated, are as under:-The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of importing, exporting and trading in various goods. In the year 1995, the Government of India decided...
M.B. Phanse Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: (2004)2GLR1299
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner,who retired as Additional Principal Judge of the CityCivil Court-Ahmedabad, seeking the relief by way ofdirections to the respondents, to add the period ofservice rendered by the petitioner as a Member of theGujarat Civil Services Tribunal, to the pensionableservice rendered by him prior to his reemployment andalso, to award all consequential benefits, inclusive ofarrears of pension and interest on refixation of thepension payable to the petitioner by taking intoconsideration the period of service rendered by thepetitioner as a Member of the Gujarat Civil ServicesTribunal.2. The short facts of the petition are as under:The petitioner started his career as a DistrictJudge on 3rd September, 1973. While he was holding thepost of Additional Principal Judge of the Ahmedabad CityCivil Court, he retired on 31st October, 1983; he wasthen appointed as a member of the Gujarat Civil ServicesTribunal ('the Tribunal' for short)...
Gujarat Paraffins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-2004
Reported in: 2004(178)ELT125(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J. 1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order No. 84-115/2002 dated30.5.2002 passed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, rejecting thepetitioners' revision application for grant of interest on the rebate claims under Section 11BB of the Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short).2. The petitioners exported goods and filed applications for rebate of claim between 14.6.2000 to 21.7.2000 for a total amount of Rs.11,12,368/-. Byorders passed between 30.8.2000 to 11.10.2000 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rural II Division,Kalol, allowed the rebate claim by way of credit in RG 23A register.3. Aggrieved by the said orders in so far as therebate claims were allowed by way of rebate claimcredited in the register and not in cash, the petitionerspreferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Byorder dated 14.12.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals)allowed the claims for rebate in cash and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›