Gujarat Court September 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.
Budhalal Chhotalal Rana and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ163
ORDERK.A. Puj, J.1. The applicants - original accused have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing and setting aside the private complaint filed by the opponent No. 2 - original complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad (for short Trial Court') which is registered as Criminal Case No. 382 of 1996 and charge-sheet filed on 13.02.1996 and further orders/proceedings of the said Criminal Case No. 382 of 1996 pending before the Trial Court.2. This Court has issued rule on 26.11.2002 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the nature of the disputes and the age of the petitioner No. 2 who was aged about 83 years and was suffering from paralysis and was totally bed-ridden and at the verge of death, was also dragged into litigation by the complainant, ad-interim relief was granted in terms of paragraph 6 (c) of the petition whereby further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 382 of 1996 pend...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: [2009]308ITR82(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. All these six appeals are taken up for hearing together as they emanate out of a common order dated June 22, 2007, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in various cross-appeals filed by the appellant-Revenue and the respondent-assessee in the following circumstances.2. The facts, as briefly stated by the Tribunal, are that the assessee, viz., M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. ('RIL' for short) distributed free food/meal coupons as per companies policy to its employees for purchase of meal. For this purpose, the assessee-company had entered into an agreement with M/s. Accor Radha Krishna Services Pvt. Ltd. ('the Accor' for short). The employees at Hazira, Surat were provided with coupons of 'Accor' of Rs. 1,300 per month at the rate of Rs. 50 per day. The total amount paid by the assessee-company to 'Accor' under the agreement for the meal coupon for the period April, 2003, to March 31, 2004, was Rs. 3.12 crores. The assessee-company claimed that amount pai...
Maganbhai Govanbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR82
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 1-7-1999 and 14-10-1999 passed by the learned Member, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. TEN. A.S. 3 of 1999 and Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 8 of 1999 respectively.2. This Court has issued notice on 21-6-2000 and petition was admitted on 18-10-2000. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared and affidavit-in-reply is filed by Dy. Collector, Olpad, Surat on 30-10-2000. Despite service of notice and rule nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner's grand-father, namely, Shri Premabhai Dhanabhai was the tenant over the land bearing Survey No. 263 admeasuring 2 acres and 16 gunthas situated in Orma. By virtue of will executed by the said Premabhai Dhan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Guj)297; [2009]308ITR243(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant-Revenue has proposed the following question:'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the transaction of sale and lease back was genuine and the assessee was entitled to depreciation?2. The assessment year in question is 1995-96. The Tribunal in its order dated November 30, 2006, has recorded the facts in the following manner:2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has entered into lease agreement with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board entrusted in generation and distribution of electricity. The assessee has got the electrical equipment and leased out the same on rent to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The assessee has shown the lease rent received from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board as its income and also the machinery purchased during the year in the audited balance-sheet. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on March 30, 1998.3. The case of the appellant-Revenue as ...
Sheth Narsinh Natha Charity Trust Fund and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR365
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner No. 1 is a charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is having the property located at Palitana and the property comprises of Dharamshala, which is used for the pilgrimage of the people believing in Jainism. As per the petitioner Trust, in the said Dharamshala, various facilities of accommodations are being provided to thousands of pilgrims visiting the holy place of Palitana and there is no condition precedent for charging any amount. It is the case of the petitioners that the entire premises of Dharamshala are used for giving accommodation free of charge for the pilgrims. If the pilgrims so feel, they may offer amount by way of donation, but the same is not compulsory and the donation is also being used for charitable purpose.2. As per the petitioners, the property of the petitioner Trust is exempted for the levy of education cess and for such purpose, the Government has issued Not...
Mahalaxmi Traders and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)19VST92(Guj)
ORDERRajesh H. Shukla, J.1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners who are the proprietors of the respective firms. Special Civil Application No. 5335 of 2008 is filed by Shri Mahalaxmi Traders through its proprietor Smt. Harpritkaur Kaushikkumar Manek and petitioner No. 2 is Smt. Harpritkaur Kaushikkumar Manek. Special Civil Application No. 7804 of 2008 is filed by Shri Bhavani Ispat through the proprietor, Kaushikkumar P. Manek and he is also petitioner No. 2. The proprietors of both the aforesaid firms are the husband and wife and the business of both the firms has been managed, controlled and carried out at the same premises, i.e., C-3-406, Anushruti Towers, Opposite New York Towers, S.G. Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad.2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the prayer, inter alia, that writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondent-authorities of effecting attachment of the b...
Shahnavaj @ Shanu Moh'dbhai Gandhi Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)1GLR220
R.P. Dholakia, J.1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been preferred by the appellant-original accused No. 21 for releasing him on regular bail in connection with D.C.B. Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad I-C.R. No. 6 of 2003 (P.O.T.A. Case No. 12 of 2003).2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the records.3. Learned Counsel, Mr. Gupta has drawn our attention towards the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 754 of 2007, more particularly, Paragraph No. 21 of the said order, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the learned Designated Judge is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. With this observation, the appe...
Dharmendrasinh Vanrajsinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR248]; (2009)1GLR434
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an order dated 30th April, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. The order reads as under:The petitioner's mother was offered appointment on compassionate ground which she did not accept. The son - petitioner was minor at the relevant time. In view of the fact that offered appointment was denied, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence this petition is dismissed.2. The matter of compassionate appointment has always remained a matter of controversy. There are equally convincing rival contentions on the issue. The Government by issuing guidelines from time to time governed the matter of grant of compassionate appointment.Even in the present case, along with an affidavit in reply filed by one Shri Piyush Patel, who has not set out his designation either in the opening paragraph or in the concluding paragraph, it is only from a rubber stamp affixed at the bottom of the affidavit that it could be learnt that ...
Patel Chemicals Works Vs. Assessing Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR450(Guj); [2009]180TAXMAN99(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. On 3-4-2000, this appeal came to be admitted by this Court and in the said order of admission the following eight questions were formulated by this Court for determination:(1) Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the imposition of penalty on the basis of the decision in Mc Dowell and Co. CTO : [1985]154ITR148(SC) (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the contracts with the sister concerns were sham transactions?(3) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant had diverted its income to sister concerns?(4) Whether the Tribunal erred in applying Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act when the assessee had filed its return in a statutory form as required?(5) Whether the Tribunal erred in confirming the Commissioner's order for one charge when the penalty order was for another charge and the show cause notice was for still another charge?(6) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) was applicable in this case?(6A) ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ashima Dyecot Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(232)ELT580(Guj); 2008[12]STR701; [2009]20STT348
ORDERK.A. Puj, J.1. The Commissioner of Central Excise has filed the above three tax appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with a proposal to formulate the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that credit availed of and reversal would amount to the effect as if the same was not availed and would thus satisfy the condition of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004?(b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in rendering the present judgment and order in view of explanation to Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether the credit availed of by the respondent under the said Rules and reversal would amount to non-fulfilment of the condition prescribed under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004?Same questions of law are framed in all the three tax appeals. As a matter of fact, all the three tax Appeals arose out of the common order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. West Zonal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »