Gujarat Court March 2006 Judgments
Sharad Bansilal Vakil Vs. Suo Motu
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1707
Anil R. Dave, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 47 of 2006 in Misc. Civil Application No. 27 of 206. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are as under:2.1 On 17.2.2006, in one of the courts, mobile phone of the appellant, who is a senior advocate practising in this court, started ringing. The appellant, upon finding that his mobile phone had started ringing, switched off the phone while going out of the court room so as to see that the court is not disturbed. When the learned single Judge noticed that the phone of the appellant had started ringing in the court, he issued notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ignoring the directions given by that court that nobody should bring his working mobile phone in the court so as to allow his mobile phone to ring. The notice was made r...
Tag this Judgment!Arunkumar T. Makwana Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Guj)433; [2006]286ITR502(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The instant appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short) is directed against order dated September 10, 2004 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SMC A in ITA No. 2179/AHD/2004 with C.O. No. 161/AHD/2004, by which the Tribunal has held that under Rule 2BA (vi) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules for short), only the lower of the two limits specified therein is exempt and, therefore, only a sum of Rs. 35,445/- being the lower limit, would be allowable to the assessee under Section 10(10C) of the Act.2. The appellant was an employee of M/s.Reliance Industries Limited. He took voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On such retirement, he received a sum of Rs. 2,21,535/-, which was claimed as exempt under Section 10(10C) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the amount receivable by the assessee on his voluntary retirement was worked out on the basis of a scheme which was not in conso...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thro Chief General Manager and 2 ors. Vs. M. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1379
R.S. Garg, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Special Civil Application No. 11731 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No. 14468 of 2004 filed by the petitioner ' Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited against Shri M.C. Verma and Shri K.K. Chaturvedi respectively and Special Civil Application No. 2900 of 2004 filed by Shri K.K. Chaturvedi, seeking further relief that he would be entitled to all his retirement benefits in view of the salary to which he would have been entitled in light of the circular dated 27.10.1997, circular dated 9.2.98 and clarification dated 26.4.2001 ( at page Nos. 37,40 and 41 respectively of the docket).2. Respondent Shri M.C. Verma had joined the services with the present petitioner prior to 24.9.84. He was promoted to STS Grade on 24.9.84 and was thereafter promoted as Junior Administrative Grade [JAG] with effect from 9.8.86. It is to be noted that the STS Group and JAG are Grade SA services. Shri K.K. Chaturvedi was also promoted to STS. Each of them filed Original...
Tag this Judgment!Crown Steel Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006(202)ELT420(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Rule. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petition is heard today.2. By means of filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner i.e. Crown Steel Company, has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated October 31, 2005 rendered by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in C/M/797/05 C/ROA/157/05 in Appeal No. 0414/02, by which the prayer made by the petitioner to restore the appeal on file has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had made false averments to the effect that with reference to Stay Order No. 285-288/02-B, dated November 13, 2002, the matter had reached upto the Supreme Court and remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.3. The petitioner i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Guj)416
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961:(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 62,056 being technical service fees paid to Mettur Beardsell Ltd.?(2) Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to exclude the leave travel concession and medical insurance premium in computing the disallowance under Section 40(c)?2. In the course of assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1985-86, the assessee claimed allowance of Rs. 62,056 being payment made to Mettur Beardsell Ltd. for using trademark 'Tebilized' on the ground that it was revenue expenditure. The assessee also claimed that the amounts of leave travel concession and medical insurance premium paid by the company for the benefit of managing director should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating disallowance under Section 40(c) o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amol Dicalite Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Guj)521; [2006]286ITR648(Guj)
J.M. Panchal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions for opinion in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Those two questions are as under:(i) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer not to deduct the amount of subsidy from the cost of assets for the purpose of calculation of depreciation ?(ii) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the ore shed as plant and allow depreciation and extra shift allowance 2. Before this court addresses itself to the legal position on the subject, a few facts may first be noticed.3. The assessee was manufacturing filter aids. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1985-86 the assessee claimed depreciation of ore shed and road to factory at 10% on the ground that they were plant. The Assessing Officer reje...
Tag this Judgment!Amc Vs. Social Coop Bank Ltd and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR1951
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has challenged the legality and validity of the order 25.2.1994 passed by the Chief Judge of Ahmedabad Small Causes Court No. 1 in Compensation Appeal No. 1991 of 1985 by which the learned Trial Court has directed the petitioner Municipal Corporation to pay an amount of Rs. 1,74,000 on account of compensation of the acquired land as well as to pay an amount of Rs. 52,200 on account of solatium and to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 2,26,200 for the first year from 20th April 1982 to 20th April 1983 and at the rate of 15% p.a., on Rs. 2,26,200 from 20th April 1983 until petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount in the Court or pays the same directly to the respondent Bank herein. 2. The short but interesting question which arises in the present Special Civil Application is, when the portion of the land is kept for road widen...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors. Vs. D.B. Gohil
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1370
B.J. Shethna, Actg. C.J.1. Rule. Learned counsel, Mr. Vaishnav waives service for respondent.2. At the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up today itself for final disposal and disposed of by this order.3. The respondent will hereinafter referred to as the applicant. The applicant was asked to explain certain actions taken by him as Income Tax Officer by letter dated 9.9.1997. Not satisfied with his reply, he was served with charge sheet dated 9.3.1999. The applicant denied the charges levelled in the charge sheet. Hence, Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report dated 22.11.2000 in favour of the the applicant by holding that none of the charges was found to be proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority communicated his disagreement note vide his letter dated 4.9.2002 to which the applicant submitted his exhaustive reply dated 24.9.2002. When no decision was taken at this stage, the applicant had approached the Central Administrati...
Tag this Judgment!Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT39(Guj)
ORDERAnil R. Dave, J.1. RULE.2. Heard learned advocate Shri A.L. Shah for the petitioner and learned Asst. Solicitor General Shri Jitendra Malkan for the respondents.3. Looking to the facts of the case and upon hearing the learned advocates, in our opinion, interim relief is required to be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Shri Malkan, learned Asst. Solicitor General, has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. : 1985ECR4(SC) , no interim relief should be granted in the instant case. According to him, for recovery of dues of the Government, the authorities can take possession of the machinery, which is subject-matter of the petition. Shri Malkan has further submitted that grant of interim relief in favour of the petitioner at this stage would amount to allowing the entire petition.4. On the other hand, upon hearing learned advocate ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Himatlal Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2665; (2006)2GLR1526
K.M. Mehta, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 18th October, 2005 passed by respondent No. 2, the Collector and District Magistrate, Patan, purportedly under Section 3 read with Section 2(h) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as PASA Act). 2. In this petition the petitioner is seeking protection of his personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has approached at the pre-execution stage in view of the fact that the impugned detention order has been passed without authority and de hors the provisions of the PASA Act on vague, extraneous and irrelevant and non-existent grounds not germane to the facts. The respondent No. 2 had no authority to pass such an order of detention purportedly under Section 3 read with Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »