Gujarat Court May 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.
National Insurance Company Vs. Jayashreeben Nandulal Nerkar (Patil) an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2004
M.R. Shah, J.1. As common question of law arises in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.2. First Appeal No. 4717 of 2006 is by the appellant herein - original respondent No. 2 - National Insurance Company, challenging the judgement and order dtd.20/1/2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Vadodara in Workmen Compensation Case No. 67 of 2001 in so far as directing the appellant - Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 4,27,140 towards the Workmen Compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realisation. 3. First Appeal No. 1044 of 2007 is by the appellant herein - original respondent (employer) challenging the judgement and order dtd.25/9/2006 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Bharuch in Workmen Compensation Application No. 63 of 1994 in so far as directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 67,139 towards workmen compensation with 50% penalty with ...
Mekaster Valves and Engineering Services Private Limited
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas593(Guj); [2010]98SCL8(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner Company, namely, MEKASTER VALVES & ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED has filed this petition under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of MEKASTER ENGINEERING & EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferor Company') with the petitioner Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferee Company'). 2. The petitioner Company is a Private Limited Company. It was started as joint venture Company with French collaboration. It is engaged in manufacturing of 'Safety relief Valves'. The products of the Company command good reputation and comply with the international standards of manufacturing. The Company has created a niche market for its products. The products find their application in all continuous process plants like Refineries, Petrochemicals, Chemical industries etc. The turnover of the Company has been growing consistently. During the financial ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikshra Trading and Investments Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Guj)652
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Revenue:1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80I of the Act ? xxx xxx xxx xxx2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that there was no justification for charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act ?2. The Assessment Year is 1993-94, the relevant accounting period being Financial Year ended on 31.03.1993. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, claimed deduction under Section 80I of the Act amounting to Rs.67,10,045/-. The Assessing Officer rejected the said claim, holding that that the assessee did not fulfill the requisite conditions. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who for the reasons stated in the appell...
Deepak Nitrite Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)374; [2008]307ITR289(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This Reference involves cross References by the assessee and the Revenue. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has drawn up a consolidated statement of case under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and referred the following questions:RA No. 645/Ahd/98 BY ASSESSEE1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the detachable warrants which authorised the holders to obtain the equity shares of the investee company after a period of four years from the date of allotment, had a monetary value ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has any materials on record to hold that the detachable warrants had a monetary value ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal took into account irrelevant and extraneous material into consideration to come to a finding that the detachable warrants had a monetary value ?4...
Upendrabhai Shantilal Maniar Vs. Sheth Shri Morarjibhai Dhanjibhai Pad ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2324
M.S. Shah, J.1. Leave to amend.2. Sheth Shri Morarjibhai Dhanjibhai Padiya, Brahmakshatriya Boarding Trust, respondent No. 1 herein runs a hostel for the students belonging to Brahmakshatriya community in the city of Bhavnagar, on Plot No. 2178, City Survey No. 2973, admeasuring 2780.875 sq. meters. The hostel building suffered severe damage on account of the earthquake on 26th January 2001, as a result of which out of 24 rooms, 4 rooms were so severely damaged that they had to be pulled down. The building required major repairs and renovations. The expenses were more than the income of the Trust. On 5th March 2007, out of 19 trustees, 18 resolved to sell the land with building so that from out of the funds generated upon such sale, the trust could construct a new hostel building at another place near the newly established professional colleges, like the colleges of medicine, homeopathic, engineering, etc.3. The trustees accordingly filed an application before the Joint Charity Commiss...
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Divyajyot Foundation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: [2010]321ITR53(Guj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The following common substantial question of law is proposed for admission of these three appeals.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,12,35,583 while the asses-see has not submitted its accounts in Form No. 10AA on or before June 30, 2004, to the DGIT(E), New Delhi as required under Section 80G(5C)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 18AAAA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, whereas Section 12(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 specifically mentioned about the accounts, which have not been rendered before the prescribed authority in given time?3. The Tribunal has considered the issue raised in the question as under:6. I have gone through the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries : [1993] 201 ITR 325, relied upon by the assessee cited above. In that case, t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Guj)35; [2009]316ITR403(Guj); [2009]176TAXMAN28(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-B has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), at the instance of the applicant- Revenue.Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) directing the AO to allow deduction of Rs. 6,28,968/- in respect of commitment charges paid for issuing debentures ?Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) directing the AO to allow deduction in respect of repairs and replacement expenditure which according to the AO amounted to creation of new assets 2. The Assessment Year is 1987-88, the relevant accounting period being Financial Year ended on 31.3.1987. The assessee, a Public Limited Company claimed (i) deduction of Rs. 6,28,968/- in respect of commitment charges; (2) Rs. 1,86,319/- plus Rs. 1,08,092/- plus Rs. ...
Bilimora Nagarpalika Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: (2009)1LLJ147Guj
R.M. Doshit, J.1. Heard the learned advocates.2. This group of Appeals preferred by the Bilimora Nagarpalika [hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipality'] under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the common judgment and order dated 27th February, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Applications. The respondent in each Appeal is the former employee of the Municipality. On retirement of the said employees on reaching the age of superannuation, the Municipality had paid the amount of gratuity computed in accordance with the prevalent rules of the Municipality.3. Feeling aggrieved, the said employees approached the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1972'] and demanded the difference in gratuity computed in accordance with the Act of 1972. The said applications were contested by the Municipality. The controlling authority upheld the claim of the employees and directed the Municipality t...
Bhanubhal Shanabhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3828
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-2-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1998 whereby, the appellant, original accused, was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C'). For conviction under Section 498A, I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of six months; while for conviction under Section 302, I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced' to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of two years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under;2.1 On 6-3-1998, at around 11.00 hrs., while Bhuriben, the wife of t...
Yogendra Dashrathlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2541
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16th February, 1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, in Order below Exh. 45-A, whereby the appellant, Prosecution Witness No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1998, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/-; and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. A copy of the said judgment and order was also directed to be sent to the Medical Council of India with a proposal to take necessary action against the appellant and to inform about the action so taken to the Court within a period of three months thereafter.2. Before we proceed with the facts of the case, we would like to narrate a brief history as to under what circumstances, the Court below has passed the impugned judgment...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »