Gujarat Court February 2005 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gaekwad and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Guj)258; [2005]277ITR553(Guj)
D.A. Mehta J.1. The following question, identically worded in both the references, has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the income from property known as 'Jadhav Bungalow' ?'2. The assessment years are 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1984-85 in Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1993 and 1979-80 in Income-tax Reference No. 335 of 1993.3. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the applicant-Revenue in both the matters. Though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 42 of 1993, while in Income-tax Reference No. 335 of 1993, Mr. B.D. Karia, the learned advocate appears.4. It is common ground between the parties that, in the impugned o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raymon Glues and Chemicals
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Guj)518; [2005]277ITR529(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' 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, Baroda.'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that deduction u/s 80HHC(1)(b) is available at 5% on the increase in the turnover of two items separately though there is a decline in overall export turnover during the present assessment year as compared to the immediately preceding year?'2. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant accounting period is year ended on 31st March 1983. The assessee, a partnership firm claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act at 1% of the export turnover of Rs. 1,83,50,024=00. The additional deduction under the said provision at 5% of export turnover was claimed in light of the increase in turnover of garments and ossein goods. The assessing officer was of the view tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sajal Sureshkumar JaIn Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-2005
Reported in: (2005)2GLR1716
D.K. Trivedi, J.1. The petitioner accused has moved this court and filed Revision Application, as he was one of the accused involved in an offence registered vide C.R.No.I-23/04 at Naranpura Police Station for the offences under Section 306 etc. of the IPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was also arrested by the police in respect of the offence registered vide C.R.No.I-2/04 at Sahibaug Police Station for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) and 120(B) of the IPC. The accused was arrested by the police on 15.1.2004.2. While filing this Revision Application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad below application Exh.4 in Sessions Case No.239/04 by which the application submitted by the petitioner accused for supply of certified copy of the documents, which had been furnished alongwith the charge-sheet to the applicant, in English or Hindi language at the earliest to enable the petitioner accused to defen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poly Steels (India) Ltd
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas384(Guj); (2005)196CTR(Guj)20; [2005]277ITR499(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the CIT, Gujarat-I, Ahmedabad :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Official Liquidator of the assessee-company in liquidation, who is an officer of the Court and is a 'public servant', while filing the return of income of the assessee-company in liquidation acted in a bona fide manner and in good faith, which necessarily implies the absence of any fraud, gross or wilful negligence and was right in holding that there is no justification in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on the basis of such return of income furnished by the Official Liquidator.'2. The assessment year is 1975-76 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 30th Sept., 1974. The assessee-company M/s Poly Steels (India) Ltd. (now in liquidation...
Tag this Judgment!Nasimbanu Wd/O SirajuddIn AmruddIn Kazi Vs. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC301; 2005ACJ1816; (2005)2GLR1476
Bhawani Singh, C.J.1. Two appeals (First Appeal No. 407 of 1998 - Nasimbanu, widow of Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi and Ors. v. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir and Ors., for enhancement of compensation and First Appeal No. 3656 of 1998 - The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Nasimbanu, widow of Sirajuddin Amruddin Kaji and Ors., for setting aside the award dated 30.8.1997 passed by the MACT, Kheda at Nadiad - MACP No. 372/88) are proposed to be disposed of by this judgment.2. Shortly stated, Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi (deceased) was driver of Tanker bearing Registration No. GTB-6374 of Kavina Transport Company owned by Ramjibhai Hirabhai Ahir (respondent-2 in FA 407/98) and insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited. Accident took place on 23.12.1987 at Boriyavi village when deceased was going from Ahmedabad to Vadodara and the offending vehicle Truck bearing Registration No. GQY-4478, driven by Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir (respondent-1 in FA 407/98) dashed against the tanker driven by S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hynoup Food and Oil Ind. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)350; [2007]290ITR702(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', Ahmedabad 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.'1. 'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that the exceptions to that section in Rule 6DD(j) can be applied for payments which were made in the course of a business outside the books?'2. The Assessment Year is 1986-87 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 31st October 1985. The respondent - assessee originally filed return of income declaring NIL income. The same was revised declaring total income of Rs. 1,65,757/-. It appears that in the said revised return net profit as per revised working was shown at Rs. 11,28,863/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 43,35,715/- being the purchase price...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Park Co. Operative Housing Society Vs. Mamlatdar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj201
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner Society has challenged the order at Annexure 'E' dated 10.7.1991 passed by the Mamlatdar, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat. By the aforesaid order, the Mamlatdar has asked the petitioner Society to pay Rs.43,823-22 towards the special cess for non-agricultural use of the land under the Land Revenue Code. As per the notice, the demand is for the period upto the year1990-91. The said notice of the Mamlatdar is challenged in this petition at the instance of the petitioner Society.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner Ms. Mehta submitted that special cess is demanded by the Mamlatdar for non-agricultural use of the land in question. It is submitted by Mrs. Mehta that at the relevant time, the land in question was forming part of the Municipal Corporation area of the city of Surat, and, therefore, relying upon sections 65 to 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, she submitted that it was not open to the revenue authorities to exercise...
Tag this Judgment!Khodaji Mafatji Thakor Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Guj200
M.R. Shah, J.1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to implement the Town Planning Scheme, Vejalpur-3 and to direct the respondents to give possession of Final Plot No. 181 as per the provisions of the scheme.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased, Maftaji Ramtuji who was owner of the land bearing Survey No. 1255 and after his death the petitioners have become owners of the aforesaid land in question. It is also further submitted that under the Town Planning Scheme, Vejalpur-III the land bearing Survey No. 1255 was allotted Original Plot No. 173 admeasuring 15884 sq.mtrs., and on reconstitution of the original plot, the petitioners are given three different plots, namely, Final Plot No. 181 admeasuring 5482 sq.mtrs; Final Plot No. 182 admeasuring 4789 sq.mtrs.; and Final Plot No. 38 admeas...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Madanjit Desai (Dr.) Vs. Secretary, Kasturba Vaidyakiya Rahat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR578]; (2005)IILLJ813Guj
ORDERRavi R. Tripathi, J.1. The Petitioner-Dr. Harendra Madanjit Desai is before this Court, being aggrieved of Order dated October 24, 2003 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Gratuity Application No. PGA-39/2001, and order dated July 19, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1977 in Appeal No. 29/2004.2. The case of the Petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the Petitioner has worked as a part time 'Anaesthetist' and was removed from service, after a long service from March 15, 1958 to March 1995 (paragraph-1 of the petition). It is his own case that he has been paid his salary, provident fund, family pension and other dues, but, he was not paid gratuity and hence, he moved an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Petitioner was working with the hospital run by Respondent No. 1. i.e. Kasturba Vaidyakiya Rahat Mandal, as a part time 'Anaesthetist'. He w...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Hynoup Food and Oil Ind. (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Guj)350; [2006]150TAXMAN194(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench A, Ahmedabad, 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 CIT, Gujarat Central, Ahmedabad :'1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made under section 40A(3) holding that the exceptions to that section in rule 6DD(j) can be applied for payments which were made in the course of a business outside the books ?'2. The assessment year is 1986-87 and the relevant accounting period is the year ended on 31-10-1985. The respondent-assessee originally filed return of income declaring nil income. The same was revised declaring total income of Rs. 1,65,757. It appears that in the said revised return net profit as per revised working was shown at Rs. 11,28,863. The assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 43,35,715 being the purchase price which was paid in cash in relation to the business which was detected i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »