Gujarat Court December 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. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharidvechan Sa ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Guj)243; [2006]283ITR116(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'SC', has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) :-Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) as claimed by the assessee on the gross income and not on the net income as worked out by the Income-tax Officer. 2. The Assessment Year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period is the year that ended on 30.6.1980. 3. The assessee is a registered co-operative society deriving income from dividend, interest and from its trading activities. In the previous year relevant to assessment year 1981-82, the assessee had dealt in a number of commodities, including articles intended for agriculture. The assessee filed its return of income on 26.6.1981 declaring total income at Nil. Assessment was finalized on 30.6.1982 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B on a total income ...
Nishith Dhruva and 2 ors. Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1298
K.A. Puj, J. 1. Since all these Special Civil Application and Civil Applications are inter connected and issues raised therein are common, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order and judgment. 2. Special Civil Application No. 6437 of 1999 is filed by one Nishith M. Dhruva, praying for the direction to the respondent i.e. Gujarat Public Service Commission to recast the final seniority list dated 24.8.1999, excluding the names of the persons shown at Serial Nos. 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 53, who did not belong to the cadre of Assistant in the establishment of respondent commission. 3. Special Civil Application No. 7844 of 1999 is filed by in all 16 persons praying for quashing and setting aside the final seniority list published on 24.8.1999 for the cadre of Assistant by respondent authorities. The petitioners have also sought for the direction to hear the petitioners and to prepare the final seniority list afresh. 4. Special Civil Ap...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Banco Aluminium Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-2005
Reported in: 2009[13]STR88
ORDERD.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-revenue has proposed the following three questions.(A) Whether the Tribunal could have allowed the appeal on the procedural/technical grounds by ignoring the issue on merit that too when the confessional statement of the employee of the assessee not retracted at all corroborated by the documentary and other statements of the suppliers?(B) Whether the Tribunal could have allowed the appeal for the want of cross-examination of persons whose confessional and un-retracted statements are on the record especially when such a procedure is unwarranted for in taxation matters as discussed in above grounds of appeal?(C) Whether the Tribunal could have allowed the appeal by raising the doubt on the department especially when the assessee themselves right from the initial stage is delaying the matter and has raised the issue of cross-examination to cover up for the confessional statements of their own employee which was not retracted on the spot.2. Heard learned...
Textile Labour Association Vs. I.F.C.i. and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas407(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Textile Labour Association, appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th August, 1998, passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 147 of 1998 with Company Application No. 265 of 1998 in Misc. Civil Application No. 6 of 1992 i.e., in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation India v. O.L. of Amruta Mills Ltd.2. Mr. D.S.Vasavada, learned advocate appeared for the appellant - Textile Labour Association. He has invited our attention to the following facts:1. The appellant submits that by an order dated 22nd November, 1991, in Company Petition No. 72 of 1991, the Amruta Mills Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court. Pursuant to the order dated 12th March, 1997, passed by this Court in Misc.Civil Application No. 6 of 1992, the assets of the Amruta Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as Sthe Company), other than lands and buildings of the Company have been sold at a public auction. The sale was conducted under the reco...
Textile Labour Association Vs. Ifci
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: [2007]75SCL248(Guj)
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Textile Labour Association, appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated August 25, 1998, passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 147 of 1998 with Company Application No. 265 of 1998 in Misc. Civil Application No. 6 of 1992, i.e., in the case of Industrial Finance Corporation of India v. Official Liquidator of Amruta Mills Ltd. [2000] 102 Comp. Cas. 253 (Guj.)2. Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned advocate appeared for the appellant-Textile Labour Association. He has invited our attention to the following facts:3. The appellant submits that by an order dated November 22, 1991, in Company Petition No. 72 of 1991, the Amruta Mills Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court. Pursuant to the order dated March 12, 1997, passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 6 of 1992, the assets of the Amruta Mills Ltd. (in liquidation)('the company'), other than lands and buildings of the company have been sold at a public auction. The sale was condu...
J.K. Paper Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT589(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. When the matter is called out Mr. Malkan prays for time to tender affidavit-in-reply. However, the request is rejected in light of the facts on record and the view that the Court is inclined to take.2. Heard Mr. Paresh M. Dave and Mr. Malkan appearing respectively for the petitioners and the respondent. RULE, returnable today. Mr. Malkan waives service. The petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel.3. This petition challenges final order No. 704/2003-B, dated 26th September, 2003 (Annexure-F) whereby the appeal of the petitioners came to be dismissed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (CESTAT/Tribunal), as well as Misc. Order No. 76/2004-B, dated 25th June, 2004 (Annexure-H) passed by the CESTAT rejecting the application for rectification of mistake.4. As can be seen from the impugned orders made by the Tribunal it has not recorded any independent finding but merely relied upon its ...
Jigneshkumar @ Pintoo Ashok Dalwadi Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1448
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Jigneshkumar @ Pintoo Ashokbhai Dalwadi, petitioner, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that this Court may issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 12th September, 2005, passed by the District Magistrate, Kheda, - respondent No. 2 detaining authority under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as SPBM Act) as being illegal, invalid, null and void, suffers from total non-application of mind and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The petition was filed on 19th September, 2005.2. My learned Brother Justice Anant S. Dave has issued Rule on 23rd September, 2005, which was made returnable after 4 weeks, and that is how the matter has been placed for hearing before this Court.3. Mr. H.R. Prajapati...
Kanabhai Laxmanbhai Kangad Vs. Bhogilal Girdharlal Kotak and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1009
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioner-original plaintiff-judgment-creditor is before this Court being aggrieved of order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajkot date 30-11-1996 below Exhs. 1 & 49 in Execution Application No. 225 of 1983.2. An application was given on 13th October, 1995 requesting the Court that an order be passed directing the judgment-debtor to execute a sale deed through a Commissioner. The petitioner judgment creditor has annexed a sketch showing the land in question. The map also shows the land acquired for the road. The learned Judge has passed an order and directed the opponent to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner (judgment-creditor) as per the decreee, for the amount mentioned therein, in terms of 'the agreement to sell' of the land admeasuring 1200 sq. yards within thirty days from the date of the order. While passing the order the learned Judge has added one condition that the judgment-creditor shall hand ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhall Enterprises and Engineers (P) Ltd ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR435(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on 16th April, 2003, the following question had been formulated by this Court:Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the third proviso to Section 32(1) of the IT Act, 1961, would not be applicable in respect of the plant and machinery which cost below Rs. 5,000 since such assets are covered specifically under the first proviso, and that the entire cost is to be allowed by way of deduction 2. In a similar matter involving identical issue being Tax Appeal No. 166 of 2005, on 3rd/4th Oct., 2005 this Court passed the following order:1. The following question has been proposed by the appellant-Revenue :Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the third proviso to Section 32(1) of the IT Act, 1961 would not be applicable in respect of the plant and machinery which cost below Rs. 5,000 since such assets are covered specifically under the first proviso, and that the entire cost is to be allowed by w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rolcon Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: [2006]286ITR450(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', 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:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that, while computing the export development allowance under Section 80HHC, the total sales, export sales and net profit should be taken into consideration as per para. 5 of the order of the Tribunal and the allowance should be computed at Rs. 94,510 instead of Rs. 12,100 ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that in working out the export development allowance under Section 80HHC, the Assessing Officer was not right in taking into consideration the loss of some of the units of the assessee ?2. The assessment year is 1986-87 and the relevant accounting period is the calendar year 1985. The assessee-company claimed under Section 80HHC of the Act relief at a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »