Gujarat Court January 2005 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. Professional Information Systems and Ma ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)14; [2005]274ITR242(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda for the Assessment Year 1983-84 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee company which provided computer services to other concerns was an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of manufacture or production and thus eligible for investment allowance u/s. 32-A on the cost of computer ?'2. The assessee company was engaged in the business of providing computer services to various concerns and received income by way of service charges for such activity. During the year under consideration the assessee company purchased computer and claimed investment allowance on the same under Section 32A of the Act. The Income Tax Officer disallowed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dinesh Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)509
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Mr. D.D. Vyas, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Revenue submits that, through oversight, the applicant-Revenue has not filed paper book, as required by rules of this Court, but prays for dispensing with filing of the paper book in light of the fact that the two questions referred for the opinion of this Court stand concluded by decisions of this Court. Accordingly, it is directed that filing of paper book be dispensed with.2. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court at the instance of CIT, Baroda under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 20,000 out of motor car expenses is not disallowable on the ground of personal and non-business use of motor car in the hands of the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the c...
Vandanaben Rasik Dagli Vs. Royal Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: [2006]65SCL11(Guj)
Jayant Patel, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, MCA No. 1419/2004 and CA No. 9488/2004 are simultaneously considered finally with SCA No. 2002/2004.2. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioners who are also the applicants shall be referred to as the petitioners and the Opponents who are respondents in the main SCA, shall be referred to as the respondents. It appears that the respondent Bank preferred lavad suit No. 2085/2002 before the Registrar's Board of Nominee in which ultimately the award was passed against the petitioners herein. It appears that the original petitioners carried the matter before the Gujarat State Coop. Tribunal being Appeal No. 1231/2002 and in the proceedings of the appeal the settlement purshis was submitted by tendering the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/= as full and final settlement and the learned Tribunal in the appeal as per its decision dated 26.8.2003 recorded the settlement and disposed of the appeal. There i...
Dagina Vs. Dy. C.i.T.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)239; [2007]290ITR622(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee appellant from the order dated 11th August 2003 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'SMC' in ITA No. 1109/Ahd/2001 for Assessment Year 1997-98. The assessee has proposed the following four questions :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the rejection of books of account of the appellant as well as the addition aggregating to Rs. 2,12,047/- on account of alleged non-maintenance of day-to-day stock and fall in gross profit rate?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material with the Appellate Tribunal to uphold the rejection of books of account and the addition of Rs. 2,12,047/-.(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,12,047/without passing a speaking and reasoned order as well as without...
Hasankhan Gulamhussainkhan Khanjada Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2633
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Hasankhan Gulamhussainkhan Khanjada, petitioner, has filed this petition with a prayer that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to give admission to the petitioner in the PTC course either in granted or self finance institution. The petition was filed on 20th September, 2004.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-2.1 The petitioner herein is hailing from a remote village of the District of Vadodara. The petitioner had successfully parted New S.S.C. and H.S.C. Examinations in the year 1998 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner had secured 59.037% marks in the New S.S.C. Examination and had seemed 68.83% marks in the H.S.C. examination.2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a `disabled person' inasmuch as he is having short eye vision. The petitioner from his childhood had decided that in future he will take up such a l...
State of Gujarat Thro Secretary Education Deptt. Vs. Somabhai Mathurbh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR332]; (2005)2GLR1105; (2005)IIILLJ453Guj
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are filed by invocation of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging part of the order of the learned Single Judge recorded in SCA 2727/04 dated 23rd February, 2004 and has raised identical questions. Upon request, we have heard these appeals together and, therefore, they are being proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment.2. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have also followed and examined the text and tenor of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and the relevant provisions of the circulars, as well as, the procedure followed for the employment of the original petitioner.3. We are satisfied from the record and the facts stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the selection of the original petitioner, one Somabhai M. Vasava, could not be said to be a back-door entry, as the appointment was made by public advertisement, inviting candidates to appear in the intervi...
Geb Vs. PravIn Nanji Nathbava
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC285; AIR2005Guj178
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. By this appeal by invocation of the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants (original defendants) have questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree recorded in Special Civil Suit No. 89/97 by the Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Junagadh on 31st December, 2003, whereby the claim for compensation based on Law of Tort for resultant injuries and permanent partial disablement to the respondent (Original plaintiff) an amount of Rs. 40,000/- came to be awarded and decreed with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. against the original claim of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. We have heard, the learned Advocate Mr. Dave for the appellants dispassionately. We have examined the evidence, apart the copies whereof came to be supplied to us in course of the hearing by learned Advocate Mr. Dave. We have also carefully scrutinised the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court Judge.3. As the ill-luck could have been, on 30/6/1995 at about 9.00 ...
The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR2015
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Customs House, Kandla, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned Judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 (Annexure : C) passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short 'CEGAT'), whereby the CEGAT had allowed the Appeal of the respondent M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and quashed and set aside the Order-in-Original.2. Preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this petition is raised by the respondent on the ground that admittedly the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of Reference Under Section 130-A of the Customs Act as on 22.2.2001, the day on which the CEGAT had allowed the Appeal in its favour. On this ground the learned Counsel Shri Sridharan, appearing with Shri Rao, for the respondent submitted that this Court should dismiss this petition without going into the merits of the case. In support of this...
Sonda Sura Bharwad Vs. Deputy Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1042
P.B. Majumdar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 7th June 2002 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act] in LAQ Case No. 1 of 1998 on the ground that though the petitioner was required to be paid adequate compensation treating the land in question as irrigated land, the land in question is treated as non-irrigated land and the award declared by the Land Acquisition Officer is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside and the State Government is required to be directed to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner under the Act at a particular rate treating the land in question as irrigated land instead of treating the same as non-irrigated land.2. The State Government had acquired the land of the petitioner for a public purpose. Proceedings under the Act were initiated by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Ultimately, at the time of d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industri ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)331; [2005]274ITR327(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(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Central, Ahmedabad:'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment made in this case for the year under consideration was barred by limitation and hence was required to be annulled ?'2. The Assessment Year is 1981-82. The assessee, a public limited company, was assessed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144-B of the Act vide assessment order dated 01-09-1984. The said order was served on the assessee on 12-09-1984. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). By way of an additional ground the assessee challenged the assessment order as being barred by limitation. However, the CIT (Appeals), for the reasons stated in his order dated 28-09-1987, did not admit the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »