Gujarat Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jhaveri Industries
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: [2008]300ITR300(Guj)
1. Heard learned advocate for the appellant.2. The following question has been raised in this appeal.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the tax levied by the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) read with Section 194B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. The case of the assessee earlier was that the amount distributed as prize by draw of lots did not form part of the term 'lottery' which is defined under Section 2(24)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This has been made a part of lottery after amendment with effect from April 1, 2002. This amendment was not made at the relevant point of time, therefore, there is no application. The order is passed under Section 201(1) and under Section 194B directing the assessee to pay the tax which has not been deducted at the time of payment of the amount by draw of lots. These are the facts given by the Tribunal as under:7. I have heard the parties and perused the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhatu Sanskar Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Guj)39; [2007]292ITR135(Guj)
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of the assessed loss even though the return was filed late, in view of the specific provisions of Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a company within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing Fluxes used by mini-steel plants for removing impurities from melted steel. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was required to file the return on or before 30th June, 1983. The assessee had, by way of an application, sought time up to 30th August 1984 for filing the return for the year ending on 30th June 1983. The Assessing Officer passed an order on file refusing to extend time for filing the re...
Rivaa Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-15-2006
Reported in: 2007(210)ELT664(Guj)
1. The short controversy raised before us in this petition is whether the Settlement Commission was justified in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority by holding that the Settlement Commission has no power to grant immunity from the payment of interest covered by bond, and on the ground that as per the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Port) v. Settlement Commission Cus. & C. Ex. : 2005(179)ELT386(Cal) interest is payable against the contractual liability and once the applicant agreed under an agreement to pay interest, he has no legal right to claim waiver of the interest amount.2. Learned Counsel submitted that in the present case only an undertaking has been given by the petitioner and there was no contractual obligation between the parties to pay interest. He further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997, which are adopted under the undertaking, payment of interest is a statutory liab...
Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust Vs. State of Guja ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: (2006)2GLR1663
K.S. Jhaveri, J.1. The challenge in Special Civil Application No. 17688/2003 is to the Notification dated 28th August 2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 declaring the respondent No. 2 company as a Relief Undertaking under the provisions of The Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958.1.1 In Special Civil Application No. 12601 of 2004 the challenge is to the order dated 1st September 2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, rendered in original Application No. 189 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal has issued notice and restrained the petitioner from disposing off, selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering, parting with the possession, creating third party rights, title, interest and claim of nay nature whatsoever in the immovable property of the petitioner company and appointed a Receiver of the immovable properties of the petitioner Company. Therefore the question to be decided in this petition is whether the respondent No. 1 State was justified in issuin...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O.L. of Minal Oil and Industr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: [2007]136CompCas399(Guj); (2007)210CTR(Guj)445; [2007]290ITR643(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition, the applicant Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Ahmedabad has prayed for an appropriate order directing the Official Liquidator of Shri Minal Oil and Industries Limited (in liquidation) to make payment of the outstanding demand of the Income tax Department, treating it to be a creditor of the company in liquidation, as per the provisions of Section 178(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By way of an amendment, the applicant has amended the prayer clause and has prayed for an appropriate order directing the Official Liquidator to set apart the amount of tax dues, as per the provisions of Section 178(2) of the Act and to comply with the provisions and the procedure enumerated under Section 178 of the Act.2. The short question, which is required to be considered by this Court is whether the tax liabilities like income tax has preference over the rights of the secured creditors and workers ...
Relief Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Deposit ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj227; [2007]136CompCas549(Guj)
ORDERAt this stage, Shri SB Vakil, learned senior advocate with Shri HV Chhatrapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has requested to stay the operation of this judgment and order so as to enable respondent Nos.1 and 2 to challenge the present judgment and order before the appropriate forum.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and order passed by this Court is stayed upto 30th June, 2006....
Bharuch Jilla Adarsh Samaj Seva Mandal Vs. Veer Narmad South Gujarat U ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3GLR2037
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Trust (Self-financed Institute) has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the decision/communication dated 26th May 2006 of the respondent No. 1 University refusing to grant affiliation to the petitioner for starting Self-Financed B.Ed. College. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent No. 1 University and the respondent No. 2 State Government to grant affiliation to the petitioner Institution on the basis of the recognition granted by respondent No. 3, i.e., National Council for Teacher Education [hereinafter referred to as NCTE].2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner wanted to start a new B.Ed. College at Mangrol, the petitioner Trust applied for NOC from the State Government and the State Government granted NOC to start a new B.Ed. College. It is also the case of the petitioner that the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›