Gujarat Court June 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.
Gujarat Carbon and Industrial Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-2008
Reported in: [2008]307ITR271(Guj); [2009]179TAXMAN6(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated March 19, 1999, for the assessment year 1988-89.2. The petitioner, a public limited company is engaged in the business of manufacturing carbon black. On March 17, 1988, search proceedings took place under Section 132 of the Act. After detailed inquiry calling for various details and evidence on the basis of discrepancies found during the course of search operation the Assessing Officer recorded as under:Since the assessee has already taken into account all the expense relating to purchase, manufacturing and sales, as such whole of the amount of Rs. 3,26,69,000 is considered to be its sales of carbon black made outside its regular books of account.Further, during search operation as per physical verification of stock inventory prepared it was found that excess stock of finished goods (carbon black) was found to the extent of 136.234 M.T. which is valuedat Rs. 21,36...
The Manager, Naaz Cinema Vs. Vasantben Rameshbhai Ghumadiya W/D of Ram ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2431
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah appearing on behalf of respondent.2. Law abiding person facing many difficulties when the person gets justice from the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is very unfortunate situation that undisputed claim of the workman challenged by employer with all legal and technical aspects that workman is not entitled this amount and Labour Court has committed an error in granting such benefit. How the Court machineries are being utilised for unnecessary legal fight between two unequal. This is a clear example of such a situation.3. In the present petition, according to prayer made by petitioner in Para 14-A, order dated 4th December 2007 passed by Labour Court in Recovery Application No. 80 of 2006 is challenged which is at Page 35.4. Learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee raised following contentions before this Court:(i) The Labour Court being a...
AustIn Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Guj)405; [2009]312ITR70(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. In each of these petitions, the parties are common and the challenge is to notice dated 10-05-2000 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961 ('the Act'). The parties are ad idem that the facts and contentions in all material particulars remain identical in each of the petitions. Hence, the petitions are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts, as are obtained in Special Civil Application No. 12050 of 2000, are narrated for appreciating the controversy between the parties.The petitioner, a limited Company, has claimed deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I of the Act for each of the four Assessment Years in question, namely, Assessment Years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively. It is also an accepted position between the parties that the assessments were finalised by the Assessing Officer on 15-04-1991, 06-03-1992, 23-03-1995 and 27-11-1995 respectively all under Section 143(3) of the Act...
Jayantilal Damjibhai Soni and ors. Vs. Director of Investigation and a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Guj)26; [2009]177TAXMAN357(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges notice dt. 4th Aug., 2000 (Annex. 'B'), issued to one M/s Jalaram Theatre, Maharshi Arvind Marg, Junagadh, under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Six petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent authority of issuing the impugned notice on the basis of the fact that the petitioners are the co-owners who owned a building named Jalaram Theatre (building). It is the say of the petitioners that the building had been rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000 in 1971 (subsequently raised to Rs. 8,000) to a firm named M/s Jayshree Talkies (Jayshree). It is further averred by the petitioners that the petitioners and /or relatives of the petitioners are in no way related to the partners of Jayshree which is carrying on business of exhibition of films in the building.2. It appears that search action under Section 132 of the Act took place on 3rd Sept., 1998, at the premises where Jayshree is running the business of exhibiting the...
Vaghri Jivandas Manji and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2034
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. Rule. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is being heard and finally disposed of today.1.1. By filing this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10th January, 2008 (18th January, 2008), rendered by the respondent No. 1, whereby the order dated 11th September, 2006 of the respondent No. 3 i.e., the Mamlatdar, Radhanpur, granting Non-Agricultural use permission in favour of the petitioners, has been set aside.2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the petition are that, the petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of late Shri Manji Kachra Vaghri, who was a tenant upon the land bearing Survey No. 378/1 and 378/2, admeasuring about 16 Acres ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Blue Bell Polymers (P) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Guj)324
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission of appeal following substantial question of law has been formulated by the High Court:Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing to allow deduction under Sections 80HHA and 80-I simultaneously ?2. The assessment year is 1990-91, the relevant accounting period being financial year ended on 31st March, 1990. The assessee, a private limited company, claimed deduction, both under Section 80HHA and Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961 (the 'Act'). The AO, after hearing the assessee, came to the conclusion that deduction claimed under Section 80HHA is to be allowed first and while granting relief under Section 80-I of the Act the amount granted as deduction under Section 80HHA of the Act is required to be reduced from the relief allowable under Section 80-I of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the contention of the assessee that both the provisions operate independently and deductions ar...
Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR63(Guj); [2009]176TAXMAN153(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This appeal was admitted after formulating the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have allowed Section 80HHC relief in respect of the 'profits derived by the assessee from the export of goods' without reducing the said profits by the amount of carried forward depreciation and investment allowance?2. The assessment year in question is 1991-92, the relevant previous year being financial year ended on 31-3-1990. The appellant-assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at a sum of Rs. 30,89,519. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to Rs. 21,75,700. The difference relatable to sum of Rs. 17,75,218 comprised of unabsorbed depreciation carried forward and investment allowance. According to the Assessing Officer, the profits derived by the assessee from export of goods were required to be reduced by deducting the amount of unabsorbed depreciat...
Hakimchand D. Chotai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Guj)589
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges the action of respondent authority in not issuing certificate of the full amount disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS); alternatively, the action of respondent authority in not refunding the sum of Rs. 7,42,000 paid as tax and interest under VDIS has been challenged.2. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for respondent authority. It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue is no longer res Integra by virtue of the decision rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT and Anr. .3. It is an admitted position between the parties that the petitioner made a declaration disclosing income of Rs. 34,50,000 on which total tax (inclusive of interest) payable was Rs. 10,77,000. The declaration was made on 8th Dec, 1997. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3,35,000 towards tax on 8th Dec, 1997. The balance amount of...
Krishnadas Govinddas Parikh Vs. Wealth Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Guj)32; [2009]177TAXMAN369(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition is a consolidated petition for asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1993-94. Two principal issues under challenge are:(1) Reopening of assessment by issuance of notice under Section 17 of the WT Act, 1957 (the 'Act') for asst. yrs. 1990-91 to 1992-93;(2) Reference made to Valuation Cell under Section 16A of the Act for asst. yrs. 1983-84 to 1993-94.2. On 29th April, 2008 after hearing the matter for sometime, the Court found it necessary to peruse the reasons recorded for reopening completed assessments for the three assessment years mentioned hereinbefore. Request for time as prayed for by the learned senior standing counsel was granted. Thereafter, on 12th May, 2008, the following order came to be recorded:Thereafter, the learned advocate for the petitioner (sic-respondent) has prayed for extention of time to comply with the aforesaid direction to place on record reasons recorded by the AO. Despite two opportunities, the learned advocate is not in a position to produc...
State of Gujarat Vs. Javedkhan @ Jahidkhan Azizkhan Pathan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2453
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POTA') challenging the judgment and order dated 26th April, 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (POTA) in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1338 of 2007 in POTA Case No. 2 of 2005 releasing the respondent herein - original accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') on bail during the trial of POTA Case No. 2 of 2005.2. Facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:Subsequent to the arrest of five boys from Ahemdabad on 03.04.2003, an FIR came to be registered with DCB, Crime Branch Police Station on 04.04.2003 being DCB I-CR No. 6 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 121, 121A, 123 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(AA), 27 and 29 of the Arms Act. Investigating agency i.e. Crime Branch, Ahmedabad also invoked provisions of POTA, 2002 on 19.04.2003. The allegations...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »