Gujarat Court April 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.
Amichand Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit (Asstt.) S.R.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Guj)230; [2008]304ITR97(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, 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 (the Act), at the instance of the assessee.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the book profit under Section 115J is to be increased by the T.D.S. Of Rs. 5,73,451/- in spite of the fact that the same is not debited to Profit and Loss Account in accordance with the provisions of parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act?2. The Assessment Year is 1988-89, the relevant account period being Financial Year ended on 31.3.1988. The assessee a limited company filed return of income on 6.2.1989 declaring taxable income of Rs. 2,35,379/- under Section 115J of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the book profit worked out by the assessee under Section 115J of the Act and added the sum of Rs. 5,73,451/- to the book profit declared by...
Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Rajnikant V. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1475
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kunal Nanavati for Nanavati Associates for the petitioner.2. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order below Exh. 13 Annexure A page 15 dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LVC) No. 1060 of 1998 wherein the labour court has dismissed the application Exh.13 made by the petitioner before the labour court.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati for the petitioner submitted that the application has been made by the petitioner stating that the Reference (LVC) No. 1060 of 1998 is bad in law on the preliminary issue and it has been contended that such contention was raised in written statement filed vide Exh. 7 and document vide Exh. 8 and the said contention is required to be decided first. According to the submission made by the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati, application regarding maintainability of reference is relating to 547 employees. Detailed reply was filed vide Ex...
Maniyabhai Manabhai Uma Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2801; (2008)3GLR2732
J.R. Vora, J.1. Instant Appeal is preferred by the Appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Panchmahals, Godhra, on 11th of September, 2003, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2003, whereby the present appellant, being accused of the said case, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.2. Short facts leading to conviction and sentence of the appellant are as under:Victim, aged about 10 years, residing at village Bilvaniya, Taluka ' Morwa, at about 3.00 p.m., had been to grazing her cattle. At about 4.00 p.m. for drinking water, she went to the house of the accused, which was nearby. The accused was all alone in the house at that time and the victim asked for water for drinking. ...
Suraj Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Guj)73
ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. Mr. R.K. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners invites our attention to the letter dt. 7th Jan., 2008 at Annex. D to the petitions from the petitioners to the Settlement Commission for the purpose of pointing out that the common order under Section 245D(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of these matters as far back as on 12th July, 2004 and that the CIT, Central-I, Ahmedabad had also submitted his report under Rule 9 to the Settlement Commission on various dates.2. Mr. Patel also invites our attention to the communication requesting the Commission to fix hearing of the matters under Section 245D(4) of the Act at the earliest. Mr. Patel also invites our attention to the order dt. 31st March, 2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 113 of 2008 (Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India and Ors.) granting ad interim stay of the provision for abatement of the proceedings relating to the petitioner pending before the...
5 Navtanpuri Dham-khijda Mandir Trust Through Acharyashri and 2 ors. V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2529
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, waive service of notice of Rule for their respective parties. The matter is finally heard.2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is a Charitable Trust, governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner applied to the Charity Commissioner for permitting sale of the land admeasuring 6150.57 sq. mtrs., bearing Survey No. 15, City Survey No. 4453, City No. 341, located at Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the land/property in question'). It may be recorded that the petitioner Trust, after undergoing the procedure for passing the Resolution of the Trust, assessed that the market value of the land is about Rs. 2,06,04,400/- and moved the proposal to the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act on the ground that the Trust is required to spend for Government Tax, Municipal Tax, etc., and may also be required to i...
Gopinathji Dev Mandir Trust Thro. Chairman and anr. Vs. State of Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2215
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and Mr. D.C. Dave, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today.2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29-1-2007 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) passed by the State Government, granting approval under Section 65(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) for sale of land admeasuring 1890.74 sq.mts. in favour of the respondent No. 4-Trust, at the rate of Rs. 912/- per sq.mt., the consequential communication dated 20-2-2007(Annexure 'B' to the petition) of the District ...
Hiaben Jayantilal Shah Vs. Ito and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: [2009]310ITR31(Guj); [2009]181TAXMAN191(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred challenging the reference dated 26-4-1996 made by the respondent No. 1, namely the assessing officer to respondent No. 2, namely the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of the share of the petitioner in the property bearing final plot No. 547, sub-plot Nos. 7 and 8, Town Planning Scheme No. 3, Moje Kocharab, Taluka : City, in the district and sub-district of Ahmedabad.2. The petitioner, was the co-owner of the aforesaid property along with her husband and son. On 29-11-1994, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the said property as a whole, along with other co-owners, for a sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs. The petitioner, who was having 25 per cent share in the property, was thus, entitled to Rs. 35,00,000 as her share in the sale consideration.3. As the value of the share of the petitioner exceeded the figure of Rs. 20,00,000, the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act wer...
Sureshchandra Lalbhai Desai Vs. O.L. Gujarat State Textile Corporation ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)2GLR1644
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant has taken out this Judge's Summons seeking leave of this Court under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue the HRP Suit No. 1065 of 2006 filed by him against the opponents for the reliefs prayed for in the said suit comprising of the relief for the actual and physical possession of the suit premises as well as for decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits and for permanent injunction restraining the opponents from transferring, assigning or parting with the possession, in any manner, of the suit premises. With the leave of the Court, the applicant has also prayed for alternative relief seeking direction to the opponents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question, namely, ground floor premises of 8, Hindu Colony, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009 to the applicant.2. This Court has issued notice on 10.03.2008 making it returnable on 19.03.2008. Mr. J.S. Yadav, learned advocate appeared for the Official Liquidator a...
O.L. of Ilaxi Modi Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ilaxi D. Modi and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas277(Guj); (2008)3CompLJ534(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Official Liquidator has filed this criminal complaint under Section 454(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 against the accused Nos. 1 to 3, who were ex-directors of M/s. Ilaxi Modi Exports Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) requesting this Court to take cognizance of the default committed by them under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 and to issue process against them. The Official Liquidator has also prayed for the directions to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to submit the statements of affairs before him in the statutory form and to attend to his office for the purpose of recording their statement under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.2. This Court has issued process on 9.5.2005. This Court further issued bailable warrants on 7.2.2006 in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- for production of accused Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court as despite service of notices, they have not remained present before the Court. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 remained present along with their counsels on ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 2 ors. Vs. Alpaben Wd/O Jigishbhai N. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj122; (2008)3GLR2307
A.L. Dave, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant to challenge the judgment and award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 412 of 1992 rendered on 12.8.1998.2. The claim application was preferred by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Jigishbhai N. Dalal who died in vehicular accident that occurred on 27.1.1992 at about 16.30 hours on National Highway No. 8, near Shastri Bridge when the deceased was going in his Maruti Car No. GJ 1 4630 and collision took place between his car and truck No. MBN 8835.3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,06,000/- in favour of the claimants from Driver, Owner and Insurer of the truck who are the appellants.4. The First Appeal is preferred by the Insurer, Driver and Owner of the truck jointly against the original claimants. The cross objections are filed by the original claimants.4.1 It is clear from the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »