Gujarat Court July 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhusudan Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)493
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Revenue has filed this tax appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 1989-90. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 18th June, 2001 and following substantial question of law was formulated by the Court:Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that interest under Section 234B is not chargeable when income is computed under Section 115J of the Act?2. Heard Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. R.K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the assessee.3. Though the Court has directed this tax appeal to be heard along with Tax Appeal No. 390 of 1999, since there are several other issues involved in the said tax appeal, we are taking up this tax appeal for final hearing separately.4. While allowing this issue in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]243ITR519(KAR) . An appeal filed against...
Bhikhabhai Dahyabhai Savaliya Vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj190
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Ms. Bhaya waives notice of Rule for respondent. The matter is finally heard today.2. The short facts of the case appears to be that, as per the petitioner, there was joint agricultural land held by him and his father, however, the partition had taken place in the year 1990 and since then, he is holding a separate parcel of land bearing Survey No. 210/1/P-2 admeasuring 4 Acre and 32 Guntha. It appears that in the year 2000, the respondent Board conducted the raid and it was found that the father of the petitioner had unauthorisedly extracted electricity and therefore, the Rojkam was undertaken and the bill was also issued for recovery of the amount for unauthorised use of the electricity. The said bill amounted to Rs. 1,56,446.65 Ps.3. As per the petitioner, he has constructed another bore in the year 2003 over the parcel of the land belonging to him and he wanted supply of the electricity over the said bore. The said application has been rejected and it was als...
Krishna Textiles Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Guj)568; [2009]310ITR227(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' Ahmedabad, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court, for the assessment year 1987-88:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drafts of Rs. 1,67,261/- being cash credits in the books of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation in the account of the assessee was the income of the assessee when there are no corresponding entries in the books of the assessee?2. If the reply to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the deduction of the said amount as the cost of purchase or as allowable expenditure?2. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1987-88, the Assessing Officer called for the copy of account of the assessee as appearing in the books of Guj...
Asstt. Cit-ii Vs. Emmtici Engg. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2009]316ITR153(Guj)
ORDERK.A. Puj, J.1. The revenue has preferred this Tax Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 1987-88. The appeal was admitted by this court on 11-2-2002 and the following questions of law were formulated by the Court:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee-company should be treated as a company where the public is substantially interested and a Public Limited Company?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in deleting the interest charged under Section 215 of the Income Tax Act.2. At the time of admission of this appeal, the court had directed that the appeal is to be heard with Income-tax Reference No. 57/1998 and Tax Appeal No. 241/2000.3. ITR No. 57/98 is already disposed of by this court by judgment dated...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Vs. Associated Crown Cl ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: [2009]315ITR291(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Revenue has filed this tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1989-90. The appeal was admitted by this Court on May 24, 2001, and the following substantial question of law was formulated by the court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing not to charge interest under Sections 234B and 234D of the Act since the total income was determined under Section 115J of the Act?2. Since there is some typographical error in mentioning the relevant Section in the question of law formulated by this Court, the same is required to be rectified and the question which was proposed to be formulated and which was intended to be formulated by this Court is as under:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order o...
iron Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinodkumar R. Singh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR1926; (2009)ILLJ503Guj
A.L. Dave, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed in Civil Application No. 14435 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 7850 of 2001 on 26th March, 2008.2. Brief Facts:2.1 The opponent-workman raised an industrial dispute and by order dated 18th May, 2001, in Reference (LCA) No. 1880 of 1991, the Labour Court directed reinstatement in service without continuity of service and without back-wages. The said order came to be challenged by the present appellant by preferring Special Civil Application No. 7850 of 2001. In the said Special Civil Application, interim relief was granted staying the order of reinstatement and the benefit of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) came to be extended to the workman pursuant to a Civil Application preferred by the workman.2.2 Subsequently, Civil Application No. 14435 of 2006 was preferred by the appellant-employer praying for discontinuance of the benefit of Section 17B to the opponent-workma...
Dipti Engineering Vs. General Manager Gujarat State Financial Corpn.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Guj169
Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule. Mr. Munshaw waives notice of Rule for the respondent.2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the loan facility was sanctioned in favour of the petitionre for Rs. 21,20,000/- and the amount of Rs. 18,42,000/- was disbursed by the respondent to the petitioner firm. In the said loan transaction, one of the property viz. residential premises of one partner of the petitioner Shri Tulsidas Bhimrao Vadelvar, was placed as collateral security with the other securities. The petitioner firm could not repay the amount and respondent Corporation proceeded against the building and plant and machinery of the firm and realised the amount of Rs. 11,12,000/- in the year 2001 and as per the petitioner, the outstanding amount remained as Rs. 7,98,997/- with interest. As the residential house of one of the partner was also given as collateral security, the respondent Co...
Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Guj)124; [2008]307ITR115(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since all these petitions are filed by the same Assessee, i.e. Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Limited, and since the common issue regarding reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is involved and since all these matters are heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.2. The assessment years involved are assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95.2.1 For the Assessment Year 1990-91, the petitioner filed its return of income on 31.12.1990. The revised return was filed on 31.12.1991. The original assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed by the Assessing Officer, wherein the claim of deduction under Sections 32A, 80HH and 80I was allowed, stating that the Assessee is treated as manufacturing concern in view of C.I.T. (Appeals)'s decision given in Assessment Years 1987-88 and 1989-90 and no second appeal is filed against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) by...
Harivadan @ Haribhai Nandubhai Patal Vs. Manan Roadways
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR662]
K.M. Thaker, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 14.3.2008 passed by the labour Court, Surat in reference (LCS) No. 76/95 whereby, the labour Court has partly allowed the said reference by directing the respondent herein to reinstate the present petitioner with continuity of service and to pay 50% of back wages.The facts coming out, about the dispute, from the impugned award and relevant for the purpose of present petition, are recapitulated below:The petitioner herein approached the labour Court by raising industrial dispute challenging his termination from service by the respondent herein. The petitioner's case before the labour Court was that he was employed by the respondent w.e.f. 15.5.1988 in its Ahmedabad branch office as a clerk and subsequently, when a branch office was started at Surat, he was transferred to the said Surat branch office and that while he was working at Ahmedabad branch office he was being paid Rs. 2,000/- pm and after he was tr...
Hirabhai Morarbhai Tandel Vs. the Competent Authority, Safema/Ndps Uni ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4290
ORDERM.D. Shah, J.Mr. Sejpal, learned Advocate waives the service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Pandya learned AGP, for Respondent No. 3.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal for , Forfeiture of Properties, New Delhi dated 18-3-2008 in No. MP-9/Bombay/2007 in FPA/ 1 /Bombay/2007 and to hear and decide the applications preferred by the petitioner being FPA/1 /Bombay/2007 as well as Stay Application No. MP-10/Bombay/2007, on merits.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15-11-1979 respondent No. 1, herein, issued notice to the petitioner under Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA Act, 1976. In pursuance of that respondent No. 1 passed another order under Section 7 of the SAFEMA Act on 6-5-1980 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 22-7-1980 to the respondent No. 1 specifically stating t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »