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.
Deval Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)282
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been preferred challenging order dt. 26th Feb., 1999 made by respondent No. 1, the Designated Authority, under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS), whereunder the declaration made by the petitioner for asst. yr. 1994-95 has been rejected for the reasons stated in the impugned order.2. The petitioner filed a return of income and disclosed income of Rs. 22,670 on 2nd Feb., 1996. The assessment order was made by respondent No. 2 on 20th Feb., 1998 assessing the total income at a sum of Rs. 19,44,420. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-III, Baroda against the assessment order. Hearing of the appeal was fixed on 29th Jan., 1999. However, on the same day i.e., 29th Jan., 1999 the petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) before the CIT, Baroda. This was followed by a declaration filed under Section 89 of KVSS on 30th Jan., 1999. The Designated Authority rejected the said application by observ...
Nikhil K. Kotak Vs. Mahesh Kumar, Ao
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2009]319ITR445(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') on 22-3-1999 by the respondent assessing officer for assessment year 1992-93.2. The petitioner, an individual, filed return of income for assessment year 1992--93 declaring total income of Rs. 23,84,550. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 143(1) of the Act. On 20-3-1995 the petitioner assessee filed a detailed reply whereunder in para No. 4 it was stated 'The details of the amount invested in the new house being Rs. 11,36,477 in each case were duly enclosed along with the return of income....'. The assessment order was framed on 23-3-1995 under Section 143(3) of the Act after referring to the working of long-term gains in para No. 3 of the assessment order.3. The impugned notice dated 22-3-1999 has been assailed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the ground that the said notice has been issued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relev...
Prehladbhai Naranbhai Patel Vs. N.K.C. Nair, Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR45(Guj); [2009]180TAXMAN122(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges notice dated March 17, 1999, issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment year 1992-93. The challenge is primarily on the ground that as the impugned notice has been issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the burden is on the Revenue to establish that any one of the conditions stipulated by the proviso to Section 147 of the Act stands fulfilled so as to vest the respondent-authority with jurisdiction, but the respondent-authority has failed to establish the jurisdictional facts.2. The facts which are not in dispute are that on October 23, 1992, a return of income declaring loss of Rs. 9,17,411 was filed by the petitioner in relation to the proprietary business carried on in the name of Shyam Traders. The assessment came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on January 31, 1995, assessing the loss at Rs. 8,41,205. The impugned notice dated Ma...
Chandubhai Virjibhai Gokani Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas720(Guj); [2009(121)FLR800]; (2009)1GLR552; [2008]87SCL155(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. Since common issue is involved in all the four matters and since they are heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. All these four criminal revision applications are filed by the petitioners original accused against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31, 12, 30 & 29 of 2002 dated 30.01.2008 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dwarka in Criminal Case Nos. 850, 180, 716 & 632 of 1994 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- and further directing the petitioners to deposit the amount of fine and, in default, the petitioners shall have to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period...
Prabhaben Harshadray Desai and ors. Vs. State Government and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)3GLR2380
Abhilasha Kumari, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order to quash and set aside the reservation on the land bearing City Survey No. 3848, Tika No. 86, situated at Navsari Town, and to declare that the reservation qua the land in question, is deemed to have lapsed and that the said land stands released from reservation. It is further prayed that the action of the respondent No. 3 in re-reserving the petitioners' land in the revised Draft Development Plan be quashed and set aside as being illegal, and the preliminary Notification dated 18-8-2007 showing that the land of the petitioners is proposed to be re-reserved, also be quashed and set aside.2. Rule was issued on 21-4-2008. In the facts and 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.3. The brief ...
Kailash T. Agrawal Vs. M.S. Thanvi, Designated Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)291
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges order dt. 15th Feb., 1999 whereunder declaration made by the petitioner under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS) came to be rejected by the respondent.2. The petitioner, an individual, was a partner of a partnership firm Jindal (India) Textile Mills Ltd. during the period relalable to asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94. The petitioner had filed returns of income declaring partnership share from the aforesaid partnership firm on the basis of return of income filed by the firm, and as per the allocation of the share of the partnership firm. It appears that the partnership firm approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of the tax liabilities relatable to asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94 in the hands of the partnership firm. On 12th Dec. 1997. the Settlement Commission made order under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act. (the Act) whereby, after computing the income of the firm, determined the tax payable by the firm and allocated the same as per ...
Sheela Ashokkumar Goenka Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Guj)287
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges order dt. 15th Feb., 1999 whereunder declaration made by the petitioner under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVSS) came to be rejected by the respondent.2. The petitioner, an individual, was a partner of a partnership firm Jindal (India) Textile Mills Ltd. during the period relalable to asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94. The petitioner had filed returns of income declaring partnership share from the aforesaid partnership firm on the basis of return of income filed by the firm, and as per the allocation of the share of the partnership firm. It appears that the partnership firm approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of the tax liabilities relatable to asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94 in the hands of the partnership firm. On 12th Dec. 1997. the Settlement Commission made order under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act. (the Act) whereby, after computing the income of the firm, determined the tax payable by the firm and allocated the same as per ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›