Gujarat Court August 2005 Judgments
Raipur (Rakhial) Commercial Co-op Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ah ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Guj58; (2005)3GLR2689
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. These three petitions raise a common question and are directed against the action of respondent ' Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited (for short, the Company) of insisting upon the payment of the arrears of electricity dues in respect of the power supplied to the previous owners as a condition precedent for the restoration of electric connection in the premises of the new owners. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2.0 The facts leading to the filing of Special Civil Application No. 15737 of 2004 are as under;2.1 The petitioner in this petition is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, engaged in commercial activities and in the construction of houses for its members. Respondent No. 2 herein, M/s. Ajar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the assets of one Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited for Rs. 13.30 crores, pursuant to the winding-up proceedings in Company Petition No. 114 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gaekwad and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Guj)166; [2006]284ITR382(Guj)
H.N. Devani, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the CIT, Baroda :(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in directing the ITO to treat the income from property known as 'Kunj Bungalow' under the head 'Business' ?(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the income from property known as 'Jadav Bungalow'?2. The assessment years are 1977-78 and 1978-79. The relevant accounting periods are 31st March, 1977 and 31st March, 1978, respectively.3. The assessee is a firm. As per Clause 5 of its partnership deed, the assessee-firm was constituted for running a hotel at Baroda or at any other place or places and to run any other business or businesses as may be mutually agreed upon by the partners thereto. The firm consisted of five partners. One of the partners had brought in property known as 'Kunj Bungalow' as capital contribution at the market value of Rs. 1,50,000 at the time whe...
Tag this Judgment!Satyadev Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Dave and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)2GLR949
R.S. Garg , J.1. The present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant against judgement and decree dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara, in Summary Suit No. 544 of 1993.2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Suit to recover a sum of Rs. 18,06,295.90 with interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent. The Suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, summons for appearance were served upon the defendant, the defendant accordingly appeared and thereafter summons were served upon the defendant. The defendant raised various pleas before the Court in his application for leave to defend and also submitted that the defendant, namely, M/s. Satyadev Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., was a sick Company and as the proceedings were pending before the BIFR, the proceedings in the Summary Suit could not be draw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Daudayal Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)556
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SA has referred following question under Section 256(1) 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, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that initial depreciation allowed in A.Y. 1982-83 on new hotel building is not deductible for arriving at WDV in view of the amendments effected by Finance Act, 1983? 2. The Assessment Year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is calender year ended on 31st December, 1984. While computing depreciation allowance under Section 32 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, decreased the Written Down Value (WDV) of hotel building by deducting initial depreciation, allowed to the assessee in Assessment Year 1982-83. The assessee, being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). 3. By order dated 27/07/1988, the C.I.T. (Appeals) cam...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Ambalal Lalji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ482; 2006FAJ151; (2006)1GLR208; [2006(2)JCR43(NULL)]
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal dated 17.10.1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Keshod in Criminal Case No. 31 of 1985 acquitting the accused of the charges of offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and issued a notice against the concerned Local Health Authority for recovering the compensation amount of Rs. 2000-00 and the same was dropped later on. This court has granted leave and admitted the appeal vide order dated 28.12.1993.2. The case of the appellant in short is that the original complainant Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused running in the name of Umiya Dudhyalaya on 13th November, 1984 at Keshod. The complainant called one Shri Harsukhbhai Jadavbhai Patel as panch witness before collecting the sample from the shop of...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Commissioner-i Vs. M.A. Kuvadia, O.L. of Aryodaya S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: [2006]72SCL348(Guj)
Jayant Patel , J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties finally. The present application is preferred by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for the relief, inter alia, to direct the Official Liquidator ' Respondent No. 1 herein to release the statutory dues of employees' provident fund and other allied statutory deductions of Rs. 79,71,834/- along with the levy of damages, etc.2. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant, Representative of the O.L., Mr. Vasavada, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.M. Desai, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3.3. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the dues of the provident fund and the contribution to the provident fund as per Section 11 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions of Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act for short), shall stand in priority over all other statutory dues as per provisions contemplated under Section 530 of the Companies Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Guj)308
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The appellant-revenue has proposed the following two questions stated to arise out of order dated 11/03/2004 made by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B'.[I] Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment void ab-initio following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. C. Malthy (supra) holding that when an assessment is framed Under Section 143(3) of the Act by issuing statutory notice beyond the prescribed time limit, the said assessment is bad in law and has to be quashed, ignoring the fact that the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings on the ground that notice Under Section 143(2) was served beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and ignoring the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. H.R. Rai 145 ITR 809?II. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law and on facts in holding the decision of the Tribunal in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR360(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following two questions stated to arise out of order dated March 11, 2004, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B'.(1) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment void ab initio following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. C. Malthy (supra) holding that when an assessment is framed under Section 143(3) of the Act by issuing statutory notice beyond the prescribed time limit, the said assessment is bad in law and has to be quashed, ignoring the fact that the assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on the ground that notice under Section 143(2) was served beyond the time limit prescribed under the Act and ignoring the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. H.R. Rai v. CIT : [1984]145ITR809(MP) ?(ii) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appella...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Guj)545; [2007]289ITR517(Guj); [2006]152TAXMAN177(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), both at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee :At the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition in respect of first two cheques for Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,50,000, respectively ?'At the instance of Revenue (sic-Assessee):'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the addition in respect of last two cheques for Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 1,25,000, respectively ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's contention that the amount could be taxed if at all only in asst. yr. 1975-76 on financial year basis as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act?'2. The assessment year is 1976-77 and the relevant accounting period is Samv...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Guj)21; [2006]281ITR92(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SB has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the assessee.(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of commutation charges of Rs. 12,01,782/- and in holding that the same was not business loss admissible either under section 28 or section 37 of the Act?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the alternative claim of the appellant to the effect that the same was allowable as deduction Under Section 57(iii) of the Act?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the second alternative argument of the appellant to the effect that the said amount represented capital loss Under Section 45 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and ought to have been given full...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »