Gujarat Court August 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. Arunodaya Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-21-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR438(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 12,86,711 in the assessment year 1984-85 and Rs. 13,13,975 in the assessment year 1985-86 incurred on payment of commission on sales cannot be treated as sales promotion expenses, and, therefore, cannot be taken into account while computing the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 19612. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of yarns, etc. In the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,35,000 under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. The details of the working is given in paragraph 7 of the reference. From the reference, it would clearly appear t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR661(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. Mr. B.B. Naik, learned Counsel for the Revenue.2. Present reference, under Section 256(1) of the Indian IT Act, has been made by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', at the instance of the Revenue which is dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal who is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 266/Ahd/1990 (Annex. 'C') in the reference book. (We must record that, in most of the cases, we find that date of the appellate order is not exhibited on the final order nor the same is mentioned in the reference order).3. The following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rental income received from any property in the construction business can be claimed under the head of 'Income from property' even though the said property was included in the closing stock and expenses on maintenance were debited to the P&L; a/c4. The short facts, leading to the reference, are that the non-appli...
Luhar Tulsidas Narsibhai Vs. Vrajlal Lalji Vaghela
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj77
R.S. Garg, J.1. The defendant being aggrieved by Judgement and Decree dated 8th February, 1982 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot at Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 1978, confirming the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge at Dhoraji on 30th January, 1978 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1976, whereunder the suit of the plaintiff on his easementary right was decreed. 2. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the document Ex.58 is inadmissible in evidence as it is not registered as required by the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act? If yes, can it not be used for the limited purpose of pointing out that the so called easement right was only permissible, in view of the agreement with the plaintiff's predecessor in title under the said document? 2) Whether necessary ingredients of Section 35 of the Easement Act are satisfied for the purpose of grant of injunc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakhanpal National Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: [2007]292ITR167(Guj)
R.S. Garg, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' Ahmedabad has made this reference for the opinion of the High Court on the following question:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the amount of Rs. 97,662 should not have been included for the purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A) ?2. The short facts are that, for the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee claimed deduction for amount of Rs. 97,662, submitting, inter alia, that this money was used for reimbursing part of the incentive paid to the sales representatives of distributors as agreed between the assessee and its distributors. However, the submission did not find favour with the Assessing Officer and on an appeal being dismissed, the assessee took up the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal placing its strong reliance upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the cases of CIT v. The Statesman Ltd. reported in ...
Dahyabhai Somchand Parmar Vs. Ramavtar B. Sharma and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC469
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Dahyabhai Somchand Parmar, appellant, original claimant, has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 14.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Gandhinagar in MAC Petition No. 154 of 1993. The Tribunal by its impugned award partly allowed the original application of the applicant and held that Ramavat B. Sharma, owner of the jeep and United India Insurance Company, the Insurance Company of the jeep, shall pay jointly and severally the awarded amount of Rs. 1,54,500 to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.2. The facts leading to filing of the claim petition are as under:2.1. In the claim petition, it is the case of the original applicant that he was travelling on his scooter bearing No. GCC 7116 and he was driving his scooter at Gandhinagar on the correct side of the road towards State Bank of India. At that time, one jeep bearing No. GJ-1-K-9598 ca...
Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Chief Post Master and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Guj72
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The present petition is filed by 'Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Limited' bearing Registration No. S-12446 dated 20.05.1974. The petitioner is having registered office at 109, Sakar-II, Opposite Town Hall, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad. The present petition is filed through an authorised officer/ Manager of the petitioner Bank.2. It is stated in para 1 of the memo of petition that,The petitioner herein is a registered cooperative society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and its registration Number is S-12446 dated 20.05.1974. The members of the petitioner-Bank are female and they belong to downtrodden class of society. The petitioner-bank is doing welfare activities for its members and the female persons belonging to the downtrodden class of the society. The members and beneficiaries of the petitioner-bank are nationals and citizens of India,....3. The present petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ, o...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravjibhai Jesangbhai Parmar and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1455
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.3.2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad in MAC Petition No. 46 of 2005 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,35,500/- together with proportionate interest and costs. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defence of the appellant- insurance company before the Tribunal was that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and that apart from raising such a plea in the written statement, on behalf of the insurance company Investigator's report Exh.19/1 and affidavit of owner of the vehicle Exh. 19/2 were also produced in support of the said defence. However, the Tribunal has not at all considered the said defence.3. In view of the above submissions, it was indicated to the learned Counsel for the appellant- insurance company that the appellant ought to move the Tribunal. The learned Co...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukhshanaben Salimbhai Vora and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1235
M.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenges the judgment and award dated 11.11.2005 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad in MAC Petition No. 395 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,54,500/- together with interest and costs to respondent No. 1 herein, the mother of the minor girl aged 7 years who died in a motor vehicles accident.2. The deceased was being carried on a motor cycle of her father on 20.12.2004. When the father was riding the motor cycle with the deceased, a kite was being flown and the kite thread on the road slit the neck of the minor girl. The girl was removed to the hospital where she succumbed to the injuries.3. Mr Mehul Sharad Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accident cannot be said to have taken place on account of involvement of a motor vehicle. If at all the claimants had any cause of action, it would be against the person who was flying the kite. Alternativel...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Ruby Sales Corpn (Agency) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Guj251
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein original defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No.1') challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad dated 30-4-1981 passed in Summary Civil Suit No.3074 of 1976 by which the learned trial Court has directed the defendant No.1 to pay Rs. 11,800/- to the plaintiff with 6% interest on the principal amount of Rs. 10000/-.2. The respondent No.1 - original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') a partnership firm filed the aforesaid summary civil suit in the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad claiming Rs. 10,000/- and the interest at the rate of 21% of the said amount for the period from 11-10-73 to 30-9-76, in all Rs. 16,025/-. The aforesaid suit was filed against two defendants. It was averred in the plaint that with respect to certain dealings with defendant No.2, the plaintiff was required to procure a bank guarantee for Rs. 10,000/- and h...
Wyeth Holdings Corpn. and anr. Vs. Controller General of Patents, Desi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(34)PTC1(Guj)
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioners, manufacturers of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations being aggrieved of impugned order dated 29.06.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad - respondent No. 2 herein are before this Court.Impugned order dated 29.06.2005 is an order which is not only devoid of any reasons but is also drawn in a very sketchy manner. Though the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'the IPAB' for short) has been observing against such orders, time and again, respondent No. 2 though in know of such observations of IPAB, refused to take cognizance thereof. In the Matter of Asian Paints Ltd. v. Registrar Of Trade Marks and Anr. reported in 2005 (30) PTC 444 (IPAB), the board observed as under:.The impugned order has been drawn up in a very sketchy manner. Quasi judicial orders affecting the vital interests of the society should be put down in a more serious manner.2. This very board in yet another matter of Hin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »