Gujarat Court July 2005 Judgments
C.i.T.-iii Vs. the Baroda Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Guj)1; [2006]280ITR282(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1 In all these Tax Appeals the following substantial question of law which arises for determination has been framed at the time of admission : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act,1961 on interest income as being attributable to the business of banking ?2 On behalf of the appellant-revenue Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel has taken the lead while Mr. B.B. Naik and Mr. T.U. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel have supplemented the contentions on behalf of the revenue. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent assessees Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate has taken the lead. Mr. R.K. Patel, Mr. S.N. Divetia, Mr. K.R. Dixit and Mr. T.P. Hemani, learned Advocates have also addressed the Court. Mr. K.H. Kazi, learned Advocate has been permitted to intervene and address the Court.3 The Assessment Year in Tax Appeal No. 208 of...
Tag this Judgment!Phlox Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: [2008]114CompCas133(Guj); [2005]63SCL237(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These petitions are filed by two petitioner Companies for sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation proposed to be made between Phlox Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'transferor Company') with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'transferee Company') under Section 391 read with 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The transferor Company was originally registered on 21.4.1995 under the Companies Act, 1956 as Public Limited Company under the name of Parekh Laboratories Limited in the office of the Asst. Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. The Company was issued the certificate for commencement of business on 26.6.1995 and subsequently the name of the Company was changed from Parekh Laboratories Limited to Phlox Pharmaceuticals Limited under fresh certificate of incorporation issued by the Asst. Registrar of companies, Gujarat, Dadra & Nagar Haveli on 11.12.1998. The transferor company is having its plant and of...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Textile and General Labour Organisation and anr. Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR112]; (2005)3GLR2047
R.S. Garg, J.1. The present is an appeal of the dissatisfied appellants against order dated 15th April 1999 passed in Special Civil application No. 8343 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application with certain clarifications.2. The present appellants filed Special Civil application No. 8343 of 1998 against the Commissioner of Labour and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour/ holding the office of the Registrar, under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the employer, namely, Modern Terri towels Company Limited and the representative union, namely, Akhil Gujarat Cotton Mazdoor Sangh. The petitioners' submission in the writ application was that in a settlement arrived at between respondent No. 3 the representative union and the employer, respondent No. 2, certain terms have been settled which are contrary to law and in fact give extra mileage to the representative union. The submission was that if the members of appellant N...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Commissioner of Labour and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ546Guj
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the appellant, challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order dated 5th February, 1999 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7814 of 1998, submitted that violation of the labour's right to get the minimum wages if is treated to be a violation of fundamental rights and violation of rights enshrined under Article-23 of the Constitution of India, then, this Court must issue a writ under Article-226 of the Constitution of India irrespective of the fact that proper legal forums, authorities and Courts have been made available to the persons for raising their disputes before such authorities. Placing reliance upon the judgements of the Supreme Court viz. (i) People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1982)IILLJ454SC ; (ii) Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan : (1983)ILLJ220SC ; and, (iii) Bandhua Mukti Morgha v. Union of India and Ors. : [1984]2SCR67 , it was submitted that if the right to receive the mini...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutlal Jagjivandas Shah and anr. Vs. Ramniklal Jagjivandas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)3GLR1889
R.S. Garg, J.1. Present is a revision petition under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, against the judgment dated 31st July, 1995 passed in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1992, by the learned Joint District Judge, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1992 passed in Civil Suit No. 337 of 1985 by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Surendranagar, directing eviction of the present petitioner. The facts in short are that the landlord-respondent filed a suit for eviction somewhere in the year 1985, submitting, inter alia, that the tenant was liable to be evicted as he was in arrears of rent, he has sub-let the premises or has parted with possession and as he has parted with possession in favour of the petitioner no.2, he is not using the premises for any reasonable cause therefore he is liable to be evicted. The tenant, so also the sub-tenant were joined as parties, notices were issued to them and they appeared in the Court after receiving the summons. It was submi...
Tag this Judgment!Favorite Industries and 2 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: 2008(222)ELT364(Guj); (2006)1GLR846
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Heard Mr. Dhaval Shah for Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Jitendra Malkan for the respondent. Considering the issue involved, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel. RULE. Mr. Jitendra Malkan waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.2. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, at Mumbai (as it was then known) against the order dated 30th September, 2002 made by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. It appears that on 13th May, 2003 the Tribunal directed the petitioners to pre-deposit duty amount of Rs. 7,66,516/- and on such compliance the penalty on the firm and on each of the partners was to stand waived and recovery thereof was stayed pending the appeals. The petitioners were to report compliance on 25th July, 2003.3. On 29th August, 2003 the appeals came to be dismissed for want of compliance...
Tag this Judgment!Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V.S. Gopalachar and/or His Successor ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR415
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition raises various different challenges in relation to two different proceedings relatable to two different periods. However, after hearing the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner on 25/4/2005 the controversy was restricted to the Order-in-Original dated 28/9/2001 bearing No. SRT/ADJ/22/OA/2001-2002, more particularly coercive recovery proceedings as a consequence of the said order. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid order had not been served on the petitioner at any point of time before initiating action of detention/attachment of goods. Upon issuance of notice the respondents have put in appearance and the pleadings are complete. Considering the fact that the controversy involves limited issue, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule returnable today. Mr. Jitendra Malkan waives service on behalf of the respondents.2. Responding to the petitioner's averment about non service of the Order-...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kayum @ Mufti Sab Ahmadhusen Mansuri and anr. Vs. State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)1GLR651
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the POTA) is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2005 passed below Exh. 311 in Special POTA Case No. 16 of 2003.2. In the above case, charge sheet was filed in November, 2003 and all the accused were supplied the statements of the witnesses including witness B-1 to B-14 whose names were not disclosed. The trial commenced about a year back. On account of the controversy about the constitutionality of the provisions of the POTA Repeal Act and the role to be played by the POTA Review Committee, the trial remained stayed for about eight months. When the stay came to be vacated, the trial commenced and 49 witnesses were examined till 14.7.2002. On 15.7.2002, PW 50 (B-3) and PW 51 (B-4) were to be examined. Before the evidence of the above two witnesses came to be recorded, the learned advocate for accused Nos. 2 and 5 filed application Exh. 311/A objecting that th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramilaben Ratilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)340
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reopening of the assessment under Section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961, could not be reagitated after the said point was consciously waived by the assessee vide letter dt. 10th Aug., 1990, submitted to the CIT(A) ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessing authority had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment under Section 147(a) of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,85,900 representing the difference between purchase price of the first floor of the house property at Athugar Street, Nanpura, Surat, as recorded in the seized diary and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2005
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Guj)617
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question 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 penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that there cannot be any question of concealment of income when there is no income 2. The assessment year is 1983-84. The assessee filed a return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 3,37,414. The assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 2,94,480. In the return of loss the assessee, who is a manufacturer of common salt, claimed loss of 6,200 tonnes of salt washed away on account of cyclone (5100 tonnes) and rain wash (1100 tonnes) valuing the loss of Rs. 50 per tonne. In support of the claim a certificate from the Deputy Commissioner of Salt to the effect that a loss of Rs. 2,40,000 had been suffered was produced. The Assessing Office...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »