Gujarat Court January 2006 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.
Abhishek Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT762(Guj); 2008[10]STR502
H.N. Devani, J.1. Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned Counsel for the respondents waives service of rule.2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the forcible collection of 13 cheques on 15th April 2005 by the respondent from the petitioner be quashed and set aside. The petitioner further seeks direction against the respondent to return the dishonoured and unde-posited cheques as well as to refund Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner, which had been recovered in violation of provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act).3. The petitioner No. 1 is a company, registered under the Companies' Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of doing job work by collecting raw material from different sources and printing of manmade fabrics.4. It is averred in the petition that a summons dated 7th March 2005 was received by the petitioner, in relation to an inquiry against one M/s. Kashish Synthetics in relation to alleged evasion of C...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Machinery Mfg. (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: [2006]282ITR595(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of CIT :1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that against the order passed by the ITO under Section 154 of the Act appeal is maintainable under Section 246 of the Act?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 214 of the IT Act?2. The assessment year is 1983-84. While passing order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal on 18th Aug., 1988, the AO did not grant interest under Section 214 of the Act, though the order had resulted in refund. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal by holding that 'No appeal lies to CIT(A) under Section 246 against the AO's non-granting of interest under Section 214 of the IT Act'.3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal ...
Chandreshbhai Rugnathbhai Gadhia Vs. State of Gujrat and 6 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2461
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the Administrator of Gondal Nagarpalika by which one Shri Kishorebhai Chhaganbhai Andipara, respondent No. 5, herein was to be appointed as member of the Gondal Agricultural Produce Market Committee under the provisions of section 11(1)(iv) of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act). The petitioner has also challenged the consequential notification dated 21.4.2005 issued by the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat, respondent No. 3 herein.2. Short facts leading to the present petition need to be noted, at this stage.1. The petitioner herein is a resident of Gondal town. He claims to be eligible for being nominated as member of the Gondal Agricultural Produce Market Committee as representative of the Gondal Municipality in terms of the provisions contained in section 11(1)(iv) of the said Act. It is the c...
G.S. Nanjee and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Guj)393; [2006]284ITR172(Guj)
H.N. Devani, 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 assessee.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?2. The Assessment Year is 1982-83 for which the relevant accounting period is calender year 1981. The assessee is a firm, carrying on the business of dealing in machinery spares, tools, etc. For the year under consideration, the assessee had returned total income of Rs. 42,620/-, which was assessed at Rs. 80,670/- under Section 143(3) of the Act. The additions, interalia included addition of Rs. 44,106/- towards suppression of sales. Accordingly, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the Assessing officer by issuing notice under Section 274 of the Act. After conside...
ishwarbhai Ganpatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gjarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)1GLR758
D.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Learned advocate for the respective parties waive service of notice of Rule for the respective parties in both the petitions. At the request of the learned advocates for the concerned parties, both these petitions are taken up for their final hearing today. 2. In both the aforesaid petitions, an important issue has been raised for the adjudication by this Court to the effect that is it obligatory on the part of State Government to give, personal hearing to the petitioners while giving sanction, to revised draft development plan under clause (C) of sub-section(1) of Section 17 of The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976) and that is it obligatory on the part of the State Government to supply copies of objections and suggestions (which are received by the Government) to the petitioner, before finalisation of revised draft development plan, under Section 17(1)(c) of the Act, 1976 3. Brief facts come upon sur...
Arora Industries Vs. Abdulhameed Abdulrasheed
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR836]; (2006)IIILLJ24Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for petitioner. Notice of rule issued by this Court has been served upon respondent but no one has remained present on behalf of respondent. Respondent has also not remained present in person before this Court. Therefore, this matter is taken up for final hearing in absence of respondent. While issuing rule, ad.interim relief in terms of paragraph 5(B) was granted by this Court. 2. In this petition, petitioner has challenged award passed by labour court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No. 2421 of 1994 dated April 2, 2003 wherein labour court has allowed application and directed present petitioner to pay Rs. 28,828.80 to respondent workman towards dues of over time within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of said order and also ordered to pay Rs. 1000.00 towards costs for said application. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for petitioner submitted that labour court has no jurisdiction to examine disputed claim...
Hansraj M. Chudasama Vs. Gsrtc
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2004)3GLR780
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Shri K.D.Pandya for the appellant.2. When the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and the learned Judge also exercised his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, then no Appeal would lie before this court in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ishwarbhai Narottambhai Patel v. K.H. Trivedi, reported in XLIV (3) GLR 1878. Hence, on this ground alone Appeal was required to be dismissed. Even if it is held to be maintainable then on merits also it has no case.3. Shri Pandya for the appellant vehemently submitted that when the learned Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction by setting aside the termination order and reinstating the workman in service with back wages, with punishment of stoppage of three increments, then the learned Single Judge of this Court ought not to have interfered with such discretionary order in his writ jurisdiction. It is true that the Labour Cour...
Nareshkumar Amrutlal Raval Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1186
J.R. Vora, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chimay Gandhi for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.C. Shah for the respondent State. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi states that the parties being husband and wife, they have settled the matter before Permanent Lok Adalat on 26.4.2002 and the order passed on that day by Conciliators Mr. Justice P.M. Chauhan (Retd) and Mr. Navin Pahwa, Advocate, is placed on record. According to this order, the parties have arrived at settlement with love and affection because of the intervention of the leading persons and relatives. The Conciliators in the said order expressed request to take lenient view in this Criminal Revision Application.3. As per the facts of the case, wife of the present applicant preferred one First Information Report against present applicant and other five persons. On filing of the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Khedbrahma, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 561 of 1993, after recording of the evidence and hear...
Raghavjibhai Narsinhbhai Patel and 4 Ors. Vs. Amroli Anjuman Fund Thr' ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj78
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2005 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition of the appellants herein challenging the interlocutory order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal (AS) No. 3 of 2005 refusing to grant interim relief prayed for by the appellants herein. 2. Amroli Anjuman Fund - a public religious charitable trust respondent No. 1 herein made an application before the Joint Commissioner, Surat seeking permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) to sell the land admeasuring 8093 sq.mtrs., situated at village Chhaprabhata in Choryasi Taluka of Surat district. Respondent No. 1 Trust (hereinafter referred as the vendor trust) stated that the land was not in use for many years, because, the land was for running Agiari and was mainly Dokhma land i.e., it was to be used for the last rituals for the members of the Parsi communit...
Harsiddh Specific Family Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-17-2006
Reported in: [2006]284ITR105(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal while deciding the assessee's appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act had jurisdiction to direct the AO to make proper investigation and then decide the question of allowability of additional commission in accordance with law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have cancelled the order of the CIT under Section 263 directing the AO to disallow the additional commission 2. The assessment year is 1986-87 and the relevant accounting period is calendar year 1985.3. The assessee had made a claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,90,18,508 towards commission. This was comprised of two parts : (1) regular commission which was deducted by the consignees bef...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »