Gujarat Court November 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. Ketan Chemicals
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]281ITR244(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there should be two separate assessments in the case of the assessee ?2. The assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee, a partnership firm, came into existence on 12th Feb., 1978 with Samvat Year as its accounting period. The firm was comprised of 14 partners. On 26th Aug., 1980, out of the 14 partners, 5 partners retired, and a deed of retirement was duly executed. The remaining 9 partners executed a fresh partnership deed on 27th Aug., 1980 along with 6 new partners, and continued the business. The partnership deed so executed on 27th Aug., 1980 specifically recorded as one of the terms that the accounting period of the partnership shall be the financial year, namely, commencing from 27th Aug., 1980 and ending on 31s...
Sheelaben M. Patel Vs. Ito
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)646
D.A. Mehta, J.Heard Mr. J. P. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, and Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. Admit.3. The following substantial question of law arises for determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to determine whether the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 which was received in cash by the assessee was or was not in consideration of surrender of tenancy rights ?'4. The assessment year 1990-91 and the relevant accounting period is financial year ended on 31-3-1990. In the assessment order, framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the assessing officer has recorded as under :'The assessee was carrying his business in the shop situated near Dhiraj Sons, Athwalines, Surat. This shop was owned by Shri Navinbhai Ratilal Modi and others which was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 80 by the...
Sheelaben M. Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: [2007]290ITR189(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. J.P. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant, and Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. Admit.3. The following substantial question of law arises for determination :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO to determine whether the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 which was received in cash by the assessee was or was not in consideration of surrender of tenancy rights 4. The asst. yr. 1990-91 and the relevant accounting period is financial year ended on 31st March, 1990. In the assessment order, framed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the AO has recorded as under :The assessee was carrying his business in the shop situated near Dhiraj Sons, Athwalines, Surat. This shop was owned by Shri Navinbhai Ratilal Modi and others which was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 80 by the assessee. During this year under considerati...
United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Mahijibhai Mangalbhai Gohil
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR1030]
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 12.8.1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 46 of 1991. The Court has admitted the matter and issued rule on 11.3.1997 and interim relief was continued subject to the provision of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman has alleged that he has worked with the petitioner Company from 29.12.1980 to 24.12.1981 and he has been given artificial break during that period. It is also alleged in the statement of claim that he had performed his duties with the petitioner Company upto 15.6.1983 and thereafter, his services were illegally terminated. It was contention of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service ...
Lalitkumar D. Thakkar Vs. Controlling Authority and Asstt. Labour Comm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ938Guj
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority on 24.10.1997 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity on 28.10.1998.2. This Court has admitted the petition and rule was issued on 25.10.1999.3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had joined the respondent No. 3 Factory in the year 1962 and left the said organization on 31.07.1995 by tendering his resignation. The petitioner was employed as Works Manager of a factory at Surat owned by the respondent Company, registered office of which is at Bombay. The petitioner has applied for gratuity vide his application dated 02.09.1995. Since the respondent Company has not taken any concrete action except for giving assurances, the petitioner has preferred an application dated 25.02.1997 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act...
Physical Research Laboratory and anr. Vs. Purshottam A. Vadher
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR764]
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellants ' Physical Research Laboratory which is a unit of Department of Space, Government of India and the Head, P&GA; have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 4106 of 2004 filed by the respondent ' petitioner by directing the respondents ' present appellants to allow the original petitioner to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice dated 5th January, 2004 and quashing and setting aside the letter of acceptance of such notice.2. The petitioner - Shri Purshottam A. Vadher was working as Assistant Administrative Officer with the Physical Research Laboratory (for short, 'PRL'). He had put in more than 30 years of service with the original respondents. He started his career as a Clerk from 16th September, 1972. From time to time, he earned promotions and lastly, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer...
Manhar T. Parmar and 7 ors. Vs. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and 2 o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR267
Jayant Patel, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this petition for quashing and setting aside the order, dated 11.3.2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 Corporation for recovery of the amount from the salary.2. Heard Mr. Shastri for the petitioners, Mr. Nanavaty for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Desai, Ld. AGP for respondent No. 3. Mr. Shastri, Ld. advocate for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid order, dated 11.3.2002 is passed by the Corporation without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Mr. Nanavaty, Ld. advocate for the Corporation submitted that as such the corporation has acted in pursuance of the order dated 29.1.2002 which is passed by the corporation on the basis of order, dated 17.4.1999 passed by the State Govt. under Section 451(1) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Mr. Shastri further submitted that even if the State Govt. has passed the said order same is also in breach of principles of natural just...
Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: [2006]280ITR512(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SA has referred the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the assessee:[1] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITO was justified in reopening the assessment Under Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act?[2] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the addition of Rs. 50,000/- in the total income of the assessee is income from undisclosed sources?2. The assessment year is 1981-82 and the accounting period is Samvat Year 2036. The assessee, an individual, had filed a return of income accompanied by a copy of his capital account in the partnership firm where he was a partner. The capital account contained a credit entry showing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as gift received. The assessment was originally completed on 25th August 1981 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 3. On 30/6/1981, Shri Ramji Nanji, t...
Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)109; [2006]280ITR513(Guj); [2006]153TAXMAN451(Guj)
1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A", has referred the following two questions under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee"(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer was justified in reopening the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act ?(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the addition of Rs. 50,000 in the total income of the assessee is income from undisclosed sources ?"2. The assessment year is 1981-82 and the accounting period is Samvat Year 2036. The assessee, an individual, had filed a return of income accompanied by a copy of his capital account in the partnership firm where he was a partner. The capital account contained a credit entry showing a sum of Rs. 50,000 as gift received. The assessment was originally completed on 25-8-1981 under section 143(1) of the Act.3. On 30-6-1981, Shri Ramji Nanji, the donor, had filed...
Patel Govindbhai Ambaram Vs. Spl. Laq Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1152
Anil R. Dave, J.1. This group of Appeals arise from the common judgment and awards dated 8th August, 2001 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge [SD], Mehsana in Land Reference Nos. 129 of 1988 to 133 of 1998. The appellants are the claimants in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 512 of 1988/M.2. The appellants are the residents of village Adaraj, Taluka-Kadi, District Mehsana. The claimants owned pieces of land at village Adaraj. The said pieces of land were temporarily acquired under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as, the Act] for exploration by the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as, the Corporation], the acquiring body. For such temporary acquisition, by Award dated 25th August, 1989, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded annual rent of Rs. 110/= per Are. As the appellants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the above referred References were made under Section 35(3) of the Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »