Gujarat Court March 2008 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.
D.R. Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(127)ECC61; 2008(153)LC61(Gujarat); 2008(229)ELT24(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. All these petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short) in so far as it provides that the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of 60 days is confined to delay for a further period of 30 days only.2. In Special Civil Application No. 4973 of 2006, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Division I, Ankleshwar passed order dated 26.6.2002 confirming the demand of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 19,01,364/- with interest at the appropriate rate in terms of Section 11AB of the Act and also imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the petitioner Company in terms of erstwhile Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara on 11.2.2003 alongwith an application for condoning the dela...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sankarji Hemaji and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1226
M.R. Shah, J.1. As all these First Appeals arise out of common judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court and raise common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.2. In all these First Appeals, the appellants original opponent No. 2 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation [ONGC] - acquiring body, has challenged the common judgement and award dtd. 15/10/2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana (Mr.J.R. Shah) (the SReference Court for short) in Land Reference Case Nos. 3780 to 3784 of 2003, whereby the Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 3 per sq.mtr. from the date of taking over possession upto 31/12/1983; Rs. 3.33 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1984 to 31/12/1985; Rs. 4 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1986 to 31/12/1987; Rs. 4.50 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1988 to 31/12/1990; Rs. 5 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1991 to 31/12/1993; Rs. 6.66 per sq.mtr. from 1/1/1994 to 31/12/1996; Rs. 8.33 per sq.mtr from 1/1/1997 to 31/12/1999; Rs...
Jugalkishore Ramnaresh Ray Vs. Chandicharan Mahanti and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj138; (2008)2GLR1487
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner, Jugalkishore Ramnaresh Ray, claiming himself to be the President of Murli (Satellite) Owners' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association' for the sake of convenience), which, as per him, is a registered non-trading association, has preferred the present petition for challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 27-7-1994 in below Application for leave to prefer appeal being Misc. Application No. 4 of 1994.2. It appears that five members of Rushvina Park Co-operative Housing Society Limited filed a Lavad Suit No. 544 of 1992 under Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the declaration and the perpetual injunction to the effect that the transaction of the society, if any, be declared as illegal and void and the society and one Nathabhai Patel be restrained from making any construction over the land of common plot of the society and i...
Echke Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)642; [2009]310ITR44(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Both in Tax Appeal and the Reference identical questions of law as follows have been referred at the instance of the assessee and hence the Tax Appeal and the Reference have been taken-up for hearing together:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the change in method of accounting adopted by the assessee ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the change was such that it disabled the officer to deduce properly the income ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the change was for convenience only and was not bonafide as it was adopted at the fag end of the accounting year and that too half heartedly ?2. The Tax Appeal relates for Assessment Year 1984-85 and the Reference relates to Assessment Year 1985-86. The relevant accounting period is the Financial Year ended on 31.03.1984 and ...
In Re: Bharatsinh Chudasama Film P. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas215(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. All these petitions are filed by the petitioner for sanctioning scheme of amalgamation of four transferor companies with one transferee company. Since common issue is involved in all the five petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Bharatsinh Chudasama Film P. Ltd., Chander Exhibitors P. Ltd., Dharam Cinema P. Ltd., and Rajshri Wood Fields P. Ltd., are the transferor companies and R World Leisure Ltd., is the transferee company. All the transferor companies are to be amalgamated with the transferee company under the scheme of amalgamation.3. R World Leisure Ltd. ('transferee company') has filed Company Petition No. 179 of 2007 seeking sanction of the scheme. The transferee company filed Company Application No. 375 of 2007 seeking dispensation of the meetings of the equity shareholders and preference shareholders. This Court, vide order dated September 6, 2007, made in Company Application No. 375 of 2007 dispensed with the meeting of the sharehold...
Matabhai Shakrabhai Bariya Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2764; (2008)3GLR2412
M.R. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr.RC Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule for the respondents. 2. Present application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the applicant convict who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S Act having found to be in possession of 12 kilograms Morphine and who has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 Lac and in default to make the payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months, for releasing him on temporary bail for a period of four weeks on the ground of marriage ceremony of his younger son which was scheduled on 27/12/2008.3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant came to be convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad vide judgement and order dtd.23/9/2005 and the appeal came to be preferred by the applicant on 16/1/...
Shardaben Rasiklal Acharya and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)46; [2008]305ITR442(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-'B', has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of the assessee, under Section 256(1) of the IT Act 1961 (the Act):1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business of Hotel Surat belonged to the partnership firm and not to the assessee as proprietor?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dissolution deed dt. 19th Jan., 1990 was not a lawful, valid and bona fide dissolution deed and assessee concocted the evidence by allegedly executing the deed of dissolution with an ulterior motive to defraud the Revenue?2. The assessment year is 1991-92 and the relevant accounting period is financial year ended on 31st March, 1991. One Dr. Rasiklal T. Acharya (since deceased) filed return of income on 31st Aug., 1991 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,36,398. As against'...
Cit Vs. Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: [2009]311ITR327(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-B, has referred the following question, for the opinion of this Court, at the instance of Commissioner under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act):Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in this case as the assessee has filed revised return before it was actually 'detected' by the department 2. The assessment years, in question, are 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Returns of the income for all the three assessment years were filed by the assessee, an individual, on 31-10-1985, 31-10-1986 and 16-12-1988, respectively. The assessments for assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 were completed. Subsequently, on 27-10-1987 search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Act took place at the premises of one M/s J.J. Corporation and its partners. During the course of such proceedings, various documents, loose paper...
Cit Vs. Venus Electricals
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: [2008]304ITR347(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue:1. RA No. 572/Ahd/1996 Asst yr. 1989-90:Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80I of the rate of 20 per cent of the profit without allowing deduction under Section 80HH ?2. RA No. 573/Ahd/1996 Asst. yr. 1989-90:Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that interest received from bank, insurance etc. should be considered as a part of business income for computing the deduction under Section 80HH of the Act ?2. The two questions, though relatable to the same assessment year i.e., 1989-90, arise out of two cross-appeals before the Tribunal which were decided by the Tribunal vide common order dated 23-8-1996.3. The relevant accounting period for the assessment year in q...
CiT Vs. Mehsana Dist. Co-Operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: [2008]307ITR83(Guj); [2009]176TAXMAN416(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Though the cause title shows revenue being the applicant in fact there are cross-references, both by the assessee and the revenue.2. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has raised and referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the CIT:Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 6,02,03,652 representing the alleged additional price of milk, paid to the member co-operative societies on the last day of the accounting year3. It is an admitted position between the parties that identical issue had come up in the assessee's own case for immediately preceding year and the issue now stands concluded by virtue of the judgment rendered in case of CIT v. Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2005) 195 CTR (Guj) 385 : (2006) 282 1TR 24 (Guj). Hence, for the reasons stated in judgment rendered on 24th Feb.,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »