Gujarat Court July 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. Patel Gruh Nirman Flat Yojna
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]303ITR479(Guj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The following questions of law are proposed for admission of these appeals.A. Whether, in view of the legal position and facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the lucky draw scheme of the assessee was not a case of lottery and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax on distribution of prizes?B. Whether, in view of the legal position and facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in following the Madras High Court CIT v. Deputy Director of Small Savings : [2004]266ITR27(Mad) judgment which was delivered on altogether different facts, and was not applicable to the facts of the case?3. At the outset learned Counsel for the Revenue has fairly submitted that the issue is covered by this Court in the case of CIT v. Jhaveri Industries : [2008]300ITR300(Guj) in Income-tax Appeal No. 1237 of 2005 wherein similar question was proposed and the appeal was not admitted....
State of Gujarat Vs. Dahyabhai Jasing and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ249; (2007)1GLR8
K.A. Puj, J.1. The State has filed this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 15.03.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1985 acquitting both the accused from the charges and offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 & 114 of Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.1985 at about 09.00 p.m. when deceased Savitaben was in her house, Dahyabhai Jesing and his wife Ramilaben, the respondents orig. accused herein, entered in the house of the deceased Savitaben and started abusing the deceased. Deceased Savitaben has also started abusing the accused Nos. 1 & 2. Because of the extensive quarrel between them, the accused No. 1 Dahyabhai has gone to his house which is adjoining to the house of the deceased and brought a kerosene tin and he poured kerosene on the deceased Savitaben and the accused No. 2 Ramilaben has ignited the match because of which ...
Cwt Vs. Mahendrabhai D. Parmar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR622(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mrs. Bhatt, learned counsel for the revenue. The Tribunal has referred the following question to us for our answer :Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to exclude the sum of Rs. 4,81,957 being assets of Mahendra Dhanjibhai Parmar Family Trust, wherein the assessee was the beneficiary from the net wealth of the assessee ?2. Mrs. Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the assessee is an individual and is partner to the extent of 8 per cent, profits in M/s. Kina- rivala R. J. K. Industries, a partnership firm. He created a family trust known as 'Mahendra Dhanjibhai Parmar Family Trust'. She also submitted that out of the 8 per cent, share, 4 per cent, is to be appropriated in favour of the said trust so that the money is used in the interest of the beneficiaries.3. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwak (2003) 259 ITR 10, she submitted that in relat...
Saurashtra Cement Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2006
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1384; [2007]75SCL375(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 with effect from December 13, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act']. The petitioners have also prayed for a declaration that the said provisions are ultra vires the Constitution of India more particularly Article 14 thereof. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 Company. Petitioner No. 1 Company is incurring losses and is unable to redeem debentures on due date, i.e., 30th September 2003 (1st installment). Considering the provision of Section 274(1)(g) of the Act, the Directors of the petitioner company would stand disqualified for being appointed as Directors in another companies after 29th September 2004 and therefore the Company has preferred the present Special Civil Application cha...
Sanjiv Family Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR156(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the very beginning of the hearing, Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate submitted that the matters relate to first level trust and second level trust, IT Ref. No. 149 of 1995-Sanjiv Family Trust is the first level trust while IT Ref. Nos. 157/1.995, 160/1995, 161/1995, 162/1995 and 163/1995 are references at the instance of the second level trusts who are claiming certain benefit under the first level trust. His further submission is that yet another first level trust, namely, Hemesh Family Trust (IT Ref. No. 148 of 1995) is not before this Court, so also Chanchalba Family Trust (IT Ref. 164 of 1995), which is second level trust is also not on the board and as these two matters are raising common question, matters may be called and be disposed of along with the listed matters. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Revenue has no objection. We have accordingly called IT Ref. Nos. 148 of 1995 and 164 of 1995.2. Mr. Soparkar, learned senior advocate for the peti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: [2009]314ITR322(Guj)
1. The following questions are proposed for admission of this appeal:(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount given to the Gujarat Maritime Board for construction of jetty and platform being written off as bad debts was allowable expenditure being a trading loss ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the extraction and selling of lignite?2. So far as the first question is concerned, admittedly the amount was given by the assessee to the Gujarat Maritime Board for construction of jetty and platform and ultimately when the construction has not been made and the amount has not been returned, can it be said that it is a trading loss. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in para 12 of its order, which is reproduced below:We have heard the learned representatives of the parties, perused...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Umiya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: [2009]314ITR272(Guj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The following common questions are raised in admission of these appeals:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in quashing the assessment without going into the merits of the case and ignoring the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer ?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had no power to make the reference to the DVO though such powers vested with the Assessing Officer by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 142A and 131(1) of the Income-tax Act?(c) Whether, on the facts and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the making of reassessment does not include the process of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act?(d) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appell...
Kanubhai Hargovinddas Dave Vs. Jaydevsinh Kalyansinh Chauhan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)1GLR667
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Advocate for the appellant having been elevated as a Judge of this Court the Registry had issued notice to the appellant, and although the said notice is served long back, the appellant has not engaged any advocate nor has appeared in person to conduct the Appeal.2. Mr. D.R. Dalai, learned advocate appeared for the respondent and has argued the matter on behalf of the respondent.3. The present First Appeal is filed by one Kanubhai Hargovinddas Dave, who is the original opponent of Probate Application No. 14 of 2002 and original applicant of Review Application No. 36 of 2002.4. The present respondent has preferred Probate Application No. 14 of 2002 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat. In the aforesaid application, the present appellant gave application Exh. 14 under Section 19 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the property of the deceased testator is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Valsad Court, and since no property of ...
Dineshbhai @ Diliyo Harmanbhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4789
A.S. Dave, J.1. In this appeal, which is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant, original accused No.1, has challenged judgment and order dated 22nd January 2001, passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, Camp at : Anand, in Sessions Case No.153 of 1998, whereby, the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000, in default, S.I. for three months.2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case begins on the basis of the first information report dated 14th January 1998, when, information as to cognizable offence came to be disclosed by Lalitaben, wife of deceased Vinubhai Punambhai Chauhan, aged 15 years, and a resident of village Gamdi, Taluka: Anand. According to the complainant, the deceased was doing battery repairing work at Chikhdha c...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. O.L. of Gil Hospitals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas217(Guj)
A.S. Dave, J.1. Shri Saurabh Amin, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Shri Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator and Shri Utkarsh Jani, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are served.2. By this application, the applicant-Commissioner of Customs, Import and General, New Delhi, has prayed for taking out judges' summons under Section 456 read with Section 457 of the Companies Act and Rule 6 read with Rules 9 and 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with a prayer clause that direction be issued to the official liquidator of GIL Hospitals Ltd. (in liquidation) to hand over the possession of 13 medical equipments as described at annexure 'A' to the affidavit filed in support of the judges' summons to the applicant since the property is vested in the Central Government with effect from October 30, 1999, by virtue of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. It is, inter alia, prayed that pending hearing and f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »