Gujarat Court October 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.
Bhagwantsinhji Charitable Trust Vs. Saurasthra University
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1069
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1.0 Trusts have prayed for an order to hold the action of the respondent University in not allotting students to the petitioner - Colleges as illegal despite their having obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, Sthe N.C.T.E S) and approval from the State Government and further to quash and set aside the report / decision of the University dated 14.09.2005.2.0 The petitioners are Public Charitable Trusts registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 provides for the grant of recognition to an Institution.2.1 As per the provisions of the said Section, the petitioners submitted their applications to the respondent University for the grant of affiliation, No Objection Certificate from the State Government and for the grant of recognition to the N.C.T.E for starting B.Ed. Colleges from the Academic Year 2004 - 2005.2.2 Pursuant to the above, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.N. Dosani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)76; [2006]280ITR275(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SB has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1956 (the Act), both at the instance of the revenue and the assessee.[1] On department's request for each of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the fresh assessment order passed in pursuance of order of the learned Commissioner Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Officer was entitled to consider only those two items which were considered by the learned Commissioner and was not entitled to consider afresh any other item for making addition ?[2] On assessee's request for assessment year 1983-84 only :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled for deduction of the entire cost of films in the year of payment?2. The as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zippers India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Guj)52; [2006]284ITR142(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1.The following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'B' under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax.'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,276/- made Under Section 37(3A) observing that commission was not included in the provisions of Sec.37(3B)?'2. The Assessment Year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year ended on 31/3/1985. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, claimed certain expenses which included local commission as well as export commission. The Assessing Officer invoked provisions of Section 37(3A) read with Section 37(3B) of the Act and disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,41,276/- vide his order dated 25/3/1998.3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the claim of the assessee by relying upon the Circular issued by Central ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Avon Flours Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-2005
Reported in: [2009]313ITR400(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following question:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in facts and in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the penalty cannot be levied in case of loss 2. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant.3. According to him, in the light of the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Chemiequip Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 265 the impugned order of the Tribunal is erroneous in law and gives rise to a substantial question of law. He has also fairly invited attention to an order made by this Court on September 12, 2005, in Tax Appeal No. 2 of 2005 in the case of Joint CIT (Asstt.) v. Panchratna Hotels Private Limited (Appx.)4. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal it has confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has relied upon the decision in the case of j...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›