Gujarat Court March 2009 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.
Jyoti Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Guj)399; [2010]321ITR135(Guj); [2009]180TAXMAN455(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on 29.12.1999 this Court had formulated following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the addition Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of unaccounted income from the sale of scrap by the appellant? 2. Today, by way of a separate order of even date in O.J. Civil Application No. 137 of 2009, the appellant herein has been permitted to agitate one more issue relatable to commission received by the assessee-Company for Assessment Year 1986-87, namely, the present Assessment Year. Accordingly, in light of the order of even date made in the aforesaid Civil Application, following additional question of law is formulated for consideration:Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the commission was received by the assessee-company in Asst. Year 1986-87? 3. The Assessment Year in question is 1986-87. It is an ac...
In Re: Sintex Industries Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1322
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Present petition has been taken out under Sections 391(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('1956 Act' for short) seeking below mentioned relief.18(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to sanction the Scheme of Arrangement being Annexure-C to the petition and declare the same to be binding on the petitioner-Company and the equity shareholders of the petitioner-Company and all persons concerned under the Scheme;Thus, the petitioner seeks sanction for the Scheme of arrangement ('the Scheme' for short) which is at Annexure-C and a declaration that the said Scheme, upon sanction, shall be binding to all concerned persons.MATRIX OF FACTS2. Earlier, an application being Company Application No. 426 of 2008 was taken out by this petitioner with a prayer for direction to convene the meetings. In the said Company Application No. 426 of 2008, this Court passed an order dated 29-7-2008 directing the petitioner to convene the meetings of equity shareholders in accordance with t...
Patel Ratilal Prahladbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1573
H.N. Devani, J.1. Rule. Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of rule for the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction against the respondent No. 2, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project, Unit No. 3, Ahmedabad to decide the application made by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') within three months, and consequently, grant the application of the petitioners with all statutory benefits available under Section 28A of the Act.3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that lands admeasuring 9688 sq. mts. of Survey No. 34 of Moje : Madrisana, Taluka Detroj, District Ahmedabad which were jointly owned by the petitioners as members of an H.U.F. came to be acquired for the purpose of the Narmada Main Canal. The Land Acquisiti...
Laluram Mohanlal Kabra (Decd.) Through Legal Heirs Radheshyam Laluram ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1508
K.A. Puj, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the order dated 23-4-2007 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 501 of 1995 is illegal and bad in law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has also prayed for the declaration that the ex-parte order dated 18-7-1994 passed by the Dy. Collector in the suo motu revision in T.N.C./Revision/Case No. 72/73 of 1992 cancelling the order dated 25-2-1991 passed by the Mamlatdar & A.L.T. in Tenancy Case No. 459/460/43/Bhang/84C of 1990 is outside his jurisdiction and it is illegal and the same is required to be quashed and set aside.2. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.3. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the subject-matter of the land in Survey No. 3319/2 a...
Asstt Cit Vs. Norma Detergent Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Guj)171; [2009]317ITR188(Guj); [2009]183TAXMAN6(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission, the following question was formulated by the High Court as substantial question of law on 6.12.1999 :Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of assessee for deduction under Section 80HH of the Act?2. The Assessment Year in question is 1989-90, the relevant accounting period being from 1.1.1988 to 31.3.1989. The assessee, a Company, claimed deduction under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee carried on manufacturing activity at Chhatral which is situated in Kalol Taluka of Mehsana District. That by virtue of Notification No. 89/165 dated 19.12.1986, Kalol Taluka was excluded from the list of 'backward area' and thus the assessee was not entitled to relief under Section 80HH of the Act. The Assessing Officer also referred to subsequent Clarification to the Notification to the effect that where production had commen...
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Guj)206
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on 26.07.2000 following substantial question of law came to be formulated by this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)'s order and deleting the disallowance of Rs. 48,02,616/- being lease rent paid to G.I.D.C. on the ground that it was revenue expenditure? 2. The Assessment Year in question is 1994-95, the relevant Accounting Year being Financial Year ended on 31.03.1994. The assessee, a Company, claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 48,02,616/-, being payment to Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC). The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to substantiate the said claim. It was contended that the lease rent in respect of the land allotted to the assessee-company being very nominal, i.e. @ Rs. 40/- per year, the said payment was nothing else but advance rent and hence, allowable as revenue expenditu...
N.H. Harsora Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: 2009(164)LC202(Gujarat); 2009(243)ELT684(Guj); (2009)2GLR1696
ORDER / CEX /MGR/2008 (Annexure-H), and order dated 8/1/2008 bearing No. 07/CEX/MGR/2008 (Annexure-C) made by the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai ('Settlement Commission').2. The facts are that pursuant to show cause notice dated 18/5/2005 during pendency of proceedings, an application came to be moved before Settlement Commission by the petitioner company on 27/5/2007 admitting duty liability of Rs. 23,80,732/-.3. Before the application dated 27/5/2007 was filed, a separate show cause notice in relation to a different period came to be issued on 30/11/2006. During pendency of the proceedings relatable to the second show cause notice, petitioner submitted a letter dated 30/5/2007 before the Settlement Commission with reference to the second show cause notice dated 30/11/2006, and admitted duty liability of Rs. 19,12,1296/-.4. On 8/1/2008 Settlement Commission heard the matter and accepted application dated 27/5/2007 in relation to show cause not...
Nathabhai Bachubhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1126
A.L. Dave, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1996 rendered on 27-9-2000. The appellants came to be tried by the Sessions Court for murder of Bhupat Nanji and causing hurt to Bharat Nanji on 23-10-1995, at about 8-30 a.m., near Nageshwar Bhavani Mata Temple at Jamnagar. As per the prosecution case, appellant No. 2-Ramjibhai Bachubhai assaulted Bharat Nanji and caused hurt to him on his back with a knife. At that time, his brother Bhupat Nanji came to his rescue, who was assaulted upon by the appellants, where appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are alleged to have caught hold of deceased Bhupat and appellant No. 2 is alleged to have inflicted three knife blows, one on chest and two in abdomen to deceased Bhupat, as a result of which Bhupat ultimately died. It is further the case of the prosecution that the incident occurred because of some monitory transaction between the wife of accused No. 1 and first informant, and ...
Senior Citizens' Service Trust and Ors. Vs. Minister for Finance and A ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-23-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1633
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Petitioner a registered trust, concerned with the welfare of the senior citizens and the depositors of various Public Sector Banks, has approached this Court with this public interest litigation. Reference was made to series of articles appeared in 'Indian Express' daily dated 6-5-2007 and 26-6-2007 containing serious allegations in the matter of appointment of independent Directors in various Public Sector Banks in the country. Portion of the reports reads as follows:Records investigated by the The Sunday Express show that the Government has crammed at least 33 to 37 positions for independent directors (called in Bank parlance 'Non-Official' Directors) with men and women known for their allegiance to the Congress party; at least five Secretaries of the All India Congress Committee (A.I.C.C), a Vice President and a Secretary of the All India Manila Congress (A.I.M.C.) and the Sewa Dal - politicians who have either lost elections or loyalists to whom the party...
Vijay Harishchandra Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2153
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Petitioner has come up with this public interest litigation challenging the steps taken by Union of India and the Planning Commission to utilise the national resources in favour of a particular minority community which according to the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of various constitutional provisions.2. President of India, in his address to the Joint Sessions of Parliament on 25-2-2005, had announced that 'the Government would recast the 15-Point Programme for planning, formulating and implementing specific interventions, policies and programmes for the welfare of the minorities which was reiterated by the Prime Minister, in his Independence Day address made in the year 2005. Consequently, the Government had revised its earlier programme and finalized 15-Point Programme for welfare of the minorities and ordered that the same would be implemented by the Central Governments/Departments concerned, through State Governments/Union Territor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »