Gujarat Court June 2008 Judgments
Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd. Vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exemption)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Guj)132; [2008]305ITR386(Guj); [2010]186TAXMAN321(Guj)
H.B. Antani, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office and business at Surat. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Director General of Income-tax (Exemption), Calcutta, dated March 31, 1997, by which the petitioner was not given the benefit under Section 80-IA(4)(iii)) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', hereinafter). It is submitted that the petitioner is running a hotel in Surat and the respondent is the prescribed authority who approves hotels for the purpose of Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act read with Rule 18BBC of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules', hereinafter). If the petitioner hotel is approved by the respondent under the aforesaid provisions, then the petitioner will get relief at the specified rate in respect of the profit earned from the hotel. The petitioner made an application for approval of its hotel under the aforesaid provisions. The relevant portion of the Section and the rule are quoted hereunder:Section 80I...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy C.i.T. Vs. Amod Petrochem Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Guj)401; [2008]307ITR265(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on 14-06-2000, the following question of law was formulated by this Court:Is the Tribunal right in holding that liability to pay tax in respect of the unexplained deposits of Rs. 1,61,895/- did not arise on the ground that the company was incorporated on 14-02-85 while the cash credits were shown to have been introduced in the books of accounts of the company on 16-01-1985, and in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. City Mills Distributors (P) Ltd. reported in : [1996]219ITR1(SC) , and not taking into account the aspect of ratification by the company of the deposits in question, the genuineness of which could not be established during the assessment?2. The Assessment Year is 1987-88. The Assessment Order instead of recording the accounting period merely records Previous Year ending on 30-04-1986. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, filed its first return of income on 30-06-1987 declaring loss of Rs. 9,47,740/-. The Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Foods Co-operative Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and 3 ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2116
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, Ld. AGP for the respondents.Learned Counsels for the parties requested to hear and decide both the matters by way of common judgment as the facts and issues involved in the petitions are identical and common. Hence both the petitions are being decided and disposed by this CAV Common Judgment.The petitioners filed present petition Special Civil Application No. 15730 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the following reliefs against the respondents:(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or direction or order quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the State Level Committee, respondent No. 3, in its meeting dated 5.6.2007 [Annexure-Y] and conveyed to the society by the Additional Industries Commissioner, vide its letter dated 5.6.2007 [Annexure-A] and be further pleased to direct the respondents to grant Sales Tax exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Suvidha Association Vs. L.R. Meena/Addl. Director of Income Tax (inves ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)382; [2010]320ITR461(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Mr. K.H. Kaji, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to amend the prayer clause by making appropriate corrections and deletions. Permission as sought for is granted. The petition is taken up for hearing after the necessary amendments have been carried out.2. This petition has been preferred by one Suvidha Association, a Non-Trading Corporation, duly registered under the Bombay Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1959 with the following prayers:16. The petitioner prays:(A) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing-(i) the Warrant of Authorisation dated 14.2.1997.(ii) notice dated 18.2.1997 issued Under Section 158BC by the 4th respondent;(iii) notice issued by the 5th respondent dated 19-5-1997 Under Section 158BC, and(v) transfer order dated 24.4.1997 Under Section 127 of the said Act passed by the 6th respondent.(B) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchanlal Maganlal Kapadia Vs. Ito
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: [2009]310ITR167(Guj); [2009]177TAXMAN211(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition is filed by one Shri Kanchanlal Maganlal Kapadia and 14 others challenging the action of the respondent in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') in the name and style of Shri Kanchanlal Maganlal Kapadia & 14 others members (AOP) for assessment year 1986-87.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that all the 15 persons jointly purchased lottery tickets, each having an equal share therein i.e., 1/15th each. Out of many tickets so purchased by the 15 individuals, one lottery ticket turned out to be a winning ticket bearing No. JM 2606390 for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000. In the return of income filed by Shri Kanchanlal Maganlal (Individual) under the head 'Income from other sources' income from winning of lottery at 1/15th share to the tune of Rs. 1,66,667 was shown and statutory deduction therefrom was claimed. The assessing officer vide notice dt. (sic) 142(1) of the Act along with letter of the same date called for followin...
Tag this Judgment!Amardeep Association Navsari Vs. Deputy Collector and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR112
M.D. Shah, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions instituted under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the parties to these petitions are also common, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Mainly, the prayer made in Special Civil Application No. 24231/2007, reads as follows:(A) That by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 3-8-2007 (Annexure 'j' to the petition) passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue authority, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in Stamp Appeal/Section 44/Review/53A/37/04/3/06 be quashed and/or set aside.(B) That by an appropriate writ, direction or order the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Navsari dated 10-5-2004 (Annexure 'C' to the petition be quashed and set aside.(C) That by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondent authorities be directed to refund the petitioner the additional sta...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsinhji Stationery Indu. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2213
M.D. Shah, J.1. This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the legality and validity of the order No. Stamp Duty AG/PSC/39Kha/804/81 dated 23-1-1995 passed by the respondent No. 2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Rajkot under Section 39(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pujari, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.3. At the outset, learned A.G.P., submitted that since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petition is liable to be dismissed.4. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and had made a valiant attempt to contend that once the writ petition is admitted by the High Court, then the High Court cannot after a long lapse of time direct the party to avail of the statutory alternative remedy of appeal. To make good his submissions, the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the following authorities:(1...
Tag this Judgment!Bharatbhai R. Bhavsar Vs. Director of Municipalities and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2157
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Ms. Mini M. Nair, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned Counsel, waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No. 4. Smt. Minakshiben G. Bhavsar, Chief Officer of Kathlal Municipality is present in person before the Court and states that the Kathlal Municipality (respondent No. 3) does not want to contest the petition, therefore, there is no necessity of issuing notice of rule to the respondent No. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-3-2008 whereby, the appeal filed by him under the provisions of Section 38(4) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 has been rejected, by the respondent No. 1.3. The brief facts,...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (Fibre Unit) and anr. Vs. Union of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(120)ECC158; 2008(156)LC158(Gujarat); 2009(233)ELT187(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner is a successor Company of a Company known as Gujarat Nylons Limited, which was amalgamated with the petitioner-Company on 01-04-1994. It is an accepted fact that Gujarat Nylons Limited imported new Extruder Screws for Spinning Lines 1, 2, 3 and 4. The goods were imported against Invoice No. Nil dated 30-08-1989 (for 2 Nos.), Invoice dated 19-04-1989 (for 1 No.) and 13-03-1989 (for 1 No.). The goods were cleared against three Bills of Entry dated 04-09-1989, 23-04-1989 and 16-03-1989 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that out of said imported goods, four pieces of Extruder Screws were to be re-exported under shipping bill presented on 18-12-1989 as the said goods were defective. The goods were presented along with shipping bill before Assistant Collector (Docks) who vide report dated 21-02-1990 permitted re-export and observed that for the purpose of entitlement to drawback, the petitioner will have to present necessary documents as may be re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Emtici Engineering Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)154; [2009]310ITR266(Guj)
Akil Kureshi, J.1. This reference at the instance of Revenue calls for consideration of question of law preferred in following terms:Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee should be treated as a public limited company?2. The concerned assessment year is 1985-86. The case of the assessee is that the assessee company is the company in which the public are substantially interested as defined under Section 2(18) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short).3. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is that the assessee company is not covered by the definition of the company in which public are substantially interested as contained in Section 2(18) of the Act. Before adverting to the factual background and the legal controversy, it would be useful to note statutory provisions applicable in the present case.4. Section 2(18) of the Act insofar as the same is relevant for our purpose reads as follows:(18) 'company in which the public are substantially intere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »