Gujarat Court July 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. Nima Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)360; [2005]278ITR588(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest for 12 months for the calendar year 1983 when the debit note was received after the close of the accounting year of the assessee ?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is the calendar year 1983. The assessee, a public limited company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jyoti Limited. The assessee-company debited an amount of Rs. 11,49,206 on December 31, 1983, as interest payable to Jyoti Limited. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim holding that no interest had been charged prior to the calendar year ; that Jyoti Limited had agreed not to charge any interest for the next year ; the assessee being a subsidiary of Jyoti Limited was m...
Vimal Enterprise and 2 Ors. Vs. the Union of India (UOi) thro' the Sec ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(103)ECC66; 2006(195)ELT267(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1 The learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the prayer clause of the petition. Permission granted. Amendment to be carried out immediately.2 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order No. C II/1410/WZB/2003 dated 11,6,2003/17.6.2003 (Annexure-J), Order No.M-5/C-IV/WZB/2004 dated 12.3.2004 (Annexure-L), OIA No. COMMR(A)/386/VDR/98 dated 25.3.1998 (Annexure-H) and OIO No.D/84/ANK/ADC/P&V;/96-97 dated 27.2.1997 (Annexure-F) whereby Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has upheld the order of Commissioner of Appeals denying the modvat credit of Rs. 3,57,997/- to the petitioner.3 Rule. Mr.Jitendra Malkan waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal to...
Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Juggalkishore Jadav
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR795]; (2005)2GLR1765
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by Order dated 1st November, 2001, passed in Special Civil Application No. 2995 of 2001 by the learned single Judge rejecting the Writ Application and confirming the order dated 21st March, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 29 of 2000, is before this Court.2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that as the employee overstayed the leave and did not report back within 15 days of the last date of the granted leave, the Establishment was justified in presuming that he has abandoned work. His further submission is that in accordance with Standing Order 14(5), as the employee did not report back to duty within 15 days of the expiry of his leave, he could not even be taken on the temporary rolls. The further submission is that the Industrial Court, so also the learned single Judge, were unjustified in holding that in accordance with the observance of the principles of natural justice, an order deeming ...
Topland Engines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT209(Guj); 2008[9]STR331
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The only issue that arises in this petition is as to whether the respondents, more particularly respondent No. 3, is entitled to go behind an order of the Tribunal and refuse to implement it by issuing the impugned show cause notice bearing F. No. V84 (18)-1236/2004-Ref., dated 3rd February, 2005 (Annexure 'H').2. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, manufactures Diesel Engines which are admittedly classified under Heading 84.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Engines are cleared for home consumption on payment of excise duty. The Engines are also removed for captive consumption for manufacturing Centrifugal Pumps commonly described as couple sets. The Excise Department took a view that the Diesel Engine, when cleared for captive consumption, was not chargeable to duty in view of the Notification No. 4/97-C.E., and Notification No. 5/98-C.E. as well as similar Notifications issued from time to time in each financial year and therefore, since the final produ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›