Gujarat Court November 2005 Judgments
Garden Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Guj)441; [2008]296ITR577(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:[A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the proceedings of the case, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the respondent, at Exhibit SD whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner to grant the interest of Rs. 36,1,500/- on payment of Rs. 54,00,000/- made on 23rd June 1988;[B] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, asking the respondent to pay the above interest of Rs. 36,31,500/-;[C] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to ask the respondent to pay the interest on the above interest in accordance with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in D.J. Works v. Dy. CIT : [1992]195ITR227(Guj) ;[D] If this Hon'ble Court is pleased to hold that on interpretation of Section 214, the petitioner is not entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ravi Traders Through His Partner Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2156; (2006)1GLR552
J.R. Vora, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Application is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sankheda in Criminal Case No. 1078 of 1997 below Exhs.9 and 15 deciding that the complaint filed by the present applicant against the opponents for the offence punishable under Section 216 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 was hit by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was liable to be dismissed. Criminal Revision Application No. 335 of 2004 was preferred by the present applicant in the Court of Sessions Judge at Vadodara and the said Criminal Revision Application No. 335 of 2004 came to be dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 13, at Vadodara on 29th July, 2005 and hence, this application for invoking inherent powers of this Court.2. Section 216 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 as was in force on the date of offence pertained to evasion of payment of octroi. It was provided that any person, who with an intention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Anantrai Gordhandas Jethwa Asstt. Operator Grade-1 Vs. Gujarat Electri ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR342]; (2006)2GLR1155
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant petitioner has challenged, in this appeal, the judgment and order dated 10th October, 2005 passed by Miss R.M. Doshit, J. dismissing his Special Civil Application No. 3573 of 2005 on two grounds that (1) when he applied for correcting his birth-date in his service record, he had already crossed the age of 50 years, and, therefore, his application could not be considered by the respondent- Board and (2) when he applied for appointment as per his other birth-date, he was minor i.e. below 18 years.2. Learned counsel Shri Mishra for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge was wrong in dismissing his writ petition on the ground that in 1999, the petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, therefore, his application for correction of birth-date in the service record could not be accepted. He submitted that as per the original service record of the appellant, his birth-date was recorded as 20th May, 1945 in the service record a...
Tag this Judgment!Lalbhai Trading Company Through B.K. Bhatt and 3 ors. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR497
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition primarily challenges the order in appeal made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 6/6/2005 (Annexure-A) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding and declaring that the impugned order (Annexure-A) is violative of principles of natural justice and are also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g);C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding and declaring that the impugned notices (Annexure-B) are violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and they are also irrational, oppressive, without application of min...
Tag this Judgment!Girishbhai Natvarbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3378; (2006)1GLR786
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.1. The appellant, i.e. the original complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal dated 12/11/2003 passed by learned 4th JMFC, Navrangpura, Ahmadabad (Rural) in Criminal Case No. 564 of 2001, acquitting the present Respondent No. 2 / original accused of the charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This Court granted leave vide order dated 7/5/2004 (Coram: C.K. Buch, J).2. The case of the complainant could be summarised as under:The complainant and accused were friends and know each other since long. The complainant was in the construction business at Ahmedabad. The complainant developed 900 sq. meter land in Ahmadabad City, Taluka Ghatlodiya and constructed 8 Row Houses. The Row House No. G/183 was sold to the accused for consideration of Rs. 13,61,000=00. As per the understanding between the complainant and accused the payment of consi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nathubhai H. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Guj)102; [2006]285ITR67(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad:For Assessment Year 1982-83:1.Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,33,000/- made by the I.T.O. on account of cost of construction of the building?2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that running the Heart Hospital and the Intensive Coronary Care Unit is an independent business activity quite different from professional services rendered as a Physician and in further holding that the Intensive Coronary Care Unit is a small scale undertaking within the meaning of Section 32A of the I.T. Act and directing the I.T.O. to allow investment allowance on Heart Monitoring Machine and tread Mill Machine in the hospital ?3. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Diesel P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Guj)328; [2006]284ITR146(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot,(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claims of the assessee in respect of production bonus amounting to Rs. 7,32,449 apart from the staff bonus which was allowed ?(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the discount on sales amounting to Rs. 2,02,754 holding the same not to be caught by the mischief of Section 37(3A) ?2. The assessment year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on June 30, 1984. The assessee, a private limited company, made payment of Rs. 7,32,449 as production bonus to its workers and claimed the same to be deductible expenditure. The assessee-company had also made a claim amounting to Rs. 2,02,754 being th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amarsinghji Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR129(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the GIT :Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the new business carried out can be held to be the same as that of the earlier years, and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of carry forward and set off of accumulated losses ?2. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30th June, 1982. The assessee, a limited company, claimed set off and carried forward of certain business losses which came to be disallowed by the AO.3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the same. Hence, the matter was carried in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dt. 9th Jan., 1992, has allowed the assessee's appeal.4. The assessee-company was manufacturing cloth from yarn and then selling the same in the market. ...
Tag this Judgment!Star Chemicals (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Vitta Mazda Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas455(Guj); [2007]74SCL80(Guj)
ORDER ON 21.12.2005)25. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision it can be said that the Company was dealing in business of development of property since 1990, but there is no sufficient material produced on record to show the date on which the property came to be purchased by the Company which in turn sold to the applicant herein. As observed earlier the burden is upon the purchaser of the property to establish that the transaction is bonafide and deserves to be declared as valid in view of the equitable consideration. Such burden appears to have been not properly discharged by the applicant in the present proceedings. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the transaction in question is on day-to-day business of the Company in liquidation.26. The perusal of one of the Sale Deeds for the portion of the property is purchased and referred in the proceedings of Company Application No. 454 of 1999 executed in favour of Mr. Keshabhai Bhanabhai Tandel, shows that even in the said S...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan D. Bhatt and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR584]; (2006)2GLR1127
Jayant Patel, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition for declaration that the petitioners are appointed on the posts of Bailiff and Peon at Labour Court, Amreli on regular, permanent basis from their date of initial appointment dated 22.06.1998 and the petitioners are entitled to all the benefits of regular Bailiff and Peon in all respect of service conditions and the petitioners have prayed for directions to direct the respondents to absorb and continue them in service as regular Bailiff and Peon with all service benefits. By amendment, the petitioners have prayed to challenge the Resolution of the Government dated 29.08.1997 for appointment on contractual basis on the posts of Bailiff and Peon. 2. Upon hearing Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pardiwala, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Dipan A. Desai, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent No. 1, it appears that on factual aspects, there is no dispute on the points as under:1. That ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »