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.
Mehsana Dist. Co. Op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR100(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1988-89:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount transferred to the reserve fund account as per the provisions of Section 67 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was not a diversion of income at source by overriding title?Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer to reserve fund cannot be treated as a business expenditure and allowed deduction under Section 28/37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. It is an admitted position between the parties that the issue raised by the two questions is concluded by a judgment rendered today between the same parties in CIT v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers' Uni...
Paroya Group Gam Panchayat and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1096
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 4-10-2007 (annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition) issued by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short) whereby, Paroya Group Gram Panchayat has been bifurcated and two villages, namely, Rodhra and Rodhra Chhapara (Petapara) came to be separated from Paroya Group Gram Panchayat by forming two separate Gram Panchayats, namely, Paroya Gram Panchayat consisting of villages Paroya, Dholivav (Petapara), Jagnath (Petapara) and Navanana (Petapara) and, Rodhra Gram Panchayat consisting of villages Rodhra and Rodhra Chhapara (Petapara). During the pendency of the petition an amendment to the petition has been carried out whereby, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 20-10-2007 and 22-10-2007 whereby an Administrator has been appointed for ...
Haroon Rashid Abdulmatinkhan Pathan Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1202]
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Since the payment of gratuity and provident fund has already been made at the time when the employee was dismissed and he did not make payment back at the time when the Tribunal passed the order, it would not be appropriate now to repay the amount. The question of salary then also gets under cloud because the employee himself has not followed the order of the Tribunal in returning the gratuity and provident fund. The petitioner has not been paid pension since 2002. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner did not join the duty, he was not paid pension as he remained dismissed employee. This proposition set up by the learned Counsel for the respondent is under misconception because the respondent knew that his reinstatement has been ordered. The question of payment of gratuity and provident fund was regularly in consideration as he was in regular touch with the employee. The employee could resume...
Ol of Gujarat Ministeel Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and 3 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas580(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The Official Liquidator has filed this report praying for the direction to Central Bank of India, GSFC & GIIC to refund to his office a sum of Rs. 3,06,23,526/-, Rs. 24,25,368/- and Rs. 8,28,324/- being the excess amount paid to them against outstanding dues, along with interest at such rate as may be determined by this Court.2. The Official Liquidator has stated in his report that the respondent No. 1 i.e. Central Bank of India has filed Company Application No. 87 of 1999 praying this Court to direct the Secured Creditors of the Company, namely, GSFC & GIIC to file their claims before the Official Liquidator. While disposing of the said application, this Court directed the Official Liquidator to file fresh detailed report pointing out the excess amount paid, if any, to Central Bank of India and GSFC.3. The relevant facts for consideration of the issue involved in the present report are that by an order dated 01.09.1992 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 85 of...
The State of Gujarat Vs. O.L. of Gstc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2008
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas456(Guj); [2008]84SCL457(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in both these Company Applications they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Both these Company Applications are filed by State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Industries & Mines Department, Sachivalay, Gandhinagar. 3. Company Application No. 562 of 2007 is in relation to Priyalaxmi Mills, Vadodara a unit of Gujarat State Textile Corporation (in liquidation) and Company Application No. 77 of 2008 is in relation to Monogram Mills, Ahmedabad a unit Gujarat State Textile Corporation (in liquidation). The common prayers are made in both these applications. The applicant State of Gujarat has prayed for appropriate order or direction directing the Official Liquidator attached to this Court to transfer and hand over all immovable assets and properties belonging to and owned by GSTC in respect of its units, namely, Priyalaxmi Mills, Vadodara, particularly land admeasuring 64192 Sq.Mtrs., bearing City ...
Green Environment Services Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-2008
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)148; 2009[13]STR250; [2009]20STT91; (2009)26VST371(Guj)
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. At the outset, Mr. Shelat submitted that the petitioner Society is a body of persons organized as a Co-operative Society based on the principle of mutuality for providing treatment of effluents and management of waste generated by industrial units which are members of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner-Society cannot, therefore, be said to be rendering any service as such to any outsider in particular, but the activities of the society also have the object in the nature of public service by taking effective steps for prevention and control of pollution and therefore, the petitioner-Society would fall in Clause (iii) 'Many person or body of persons engaged in any activity having objects which are in the nature of public service and are of a charitable, religious or political nature' which is excluded from the purview of service tax under the provisions of Section 65(25a) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. After hearing Mr. S.N. Shelat learned Senior Advocate with Mr. M...
Marvel Agrex Ltd. Vs. O.L. of Marvel Agrex Ltd. and 8 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas322(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant, namely, M/s. Marvel Agrex Ltd., now in liquidation has filed this application through its Ex-Director -Shri Harsh Maheshwari, for recalling of the order passed by this Court on 20.2.2006 in Company Petition No. 157 of 2004 and for revival and restoration of the said Company Petition to the file. In view of the fact that Appeal against the order passed by the BIFR has been filed before the AAIFR and registered as Appeal No. 3 of 2005, after the present application was filed and, thereafter, it was decided by AAIFR to quash and set aside the order passed by the BIFR and remanded the matter to BIFR. 2. Mr. B.T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that pursuant to the opinion forwarded by BIFR for winding up of the Company, notice was issued by this Court in Company Petition No. 157 of 2004 and in response to the said notice, Director of the Company has appeared through its advocate and affidavit has been filed before this Court on ...
Cit Vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: [2008]306ITR179(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner, Baroda:Whether on the facts the finding of the Tribunal that the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not imposable after July, 1980 is correct in law on facts ?2. The assessment year is 1979-80 and the relevant accounting period is S.Y. 2034. The due date of filing of return of income was 31-7-1979. The assessee, an HUF, filed return of income on 23-3-1982 declaring nil income. In the statement, accompanying to return of income, the assessee had shown the amount received on sale of agricultural land as exempt in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth and Ors. v. N.D. Nirgudkar, ITO and Anr. : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) .3. As the return of income had been filed belatedly, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act a...
Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Cit
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR274(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This reference, though shown to be at the instance of the assessee applicant in fact involves cross references for assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. In fact, there are as many as 11 references arising from 7 appeals before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has drawn up a consolidated statement of case as broadly the controversy is divided into two issues.2. Insofar as the assessee applicant is concerned the following six questions have been raised under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the evidence in the form of certificates and statements filed during the course of assessment proceedings?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the purchases of tins plates for manufacture of this were not made on the basis of weight but were made on th...
State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Rashmikant G. Dave
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR70]; (2008)IIILLJ813Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia waives the service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with consent of both the learned Advocates, matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.G. Desai on behalf of petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia with learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhari appearing for respondent workman.3. In the present petition, petitioner Bank has challenged the order passed by C.G.I.T.A. in application No. 636/2004, old reference ITC No. 50/1995 dated May 30,2006 and September 13, 2007 which are at Annexure A & Annexure D to the petition.The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court, vide Exhibit 43 decided that departmental inquiry held against the workman is illegal and against principles of, natural justice and that the finding given by Inquiry Officer is not based on evidence. Thereafter, matter was further processed for hearing on July 7, 2006...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »