Gujarat Court April 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.
Bhil Khoda Ranmal and anr. Vs. Joint Secretary, Appeal, Revenue Deptt. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-15-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR1959
D.A. Mehta, J.1. Considering the scope of dispute between the parties and the respective stands of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. Rule. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents are directed to waive service.2. It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing Survey No. 191/1 paiki, admeasuring 10 gunthas of new tenure, situated at Village Khedva, Taluka Bhildi, Dist. Banaskantha, stood in the name of one Shri Bhil Chhogaji Motiji, respondent No. 3 herein, and the same was regranted vide Entry No. 377 as per order of Deputy Collector, Palanpur on 4-1-1981 to respondent No. 3. Admittedly, respondent No. 3, got the said land converted from new tenure to old tenure upon certain conditions.3. It is further averred by the petitioners that vide sale-deed Nos. 382 and 383 of 1999 respondent No. 3 sold the land to the petitioners on 15-2-1999. Respondent No. 2, Assistant Collector, District Banaskantha undertook suo motu revision...
Uco Bank Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Guj)165; [2009]182TAXMAN26(Guj)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. The Special Civil Application No. 17941 of 2007 was preferred by the UCO Bank against the Income Come Tax Department, Union of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside notice dated 05.07.2007 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer-5, Range-5, Baroda to the bank directing it to deposit amount of Rs. 14.60 lacs the value realized by sale of property which was under the attachment with the Income Tax Department. When the matter came up for admission before a learned Judge, learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the Income Tax Department disposed of the Special Civil Application on 08.08.2007 holding that the remedy open to the Bank is to approach the High Power Committee since the dispute is between two departments. Reference was made to few decisions of the Apex Court viz. [1] Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise : 1992(61)ELT3(SC) , [2] Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Guj)208; [2009]314ITR251(Guj); [2009]183TAXMAN189(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on July 9, 2007, the following two questions were formulated by the High Court:(1) That the Appellate Tribunal has seriously erred in law and on facts in holding that preparation of profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI, Parts II and III of the Companies Act which is different from the profit and loss account approved at the annual general meeting is permissible?(2) That the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of interest of Rs. 9,64,179 payable on disputed excise duty?2. The assessment year in question is 1989-90, the relevant accounting period being previous year ended on March 31, 1989. The respondent-assessee, a limited company, declared a total income of Rs. 1,31,118 as computed under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as per the return of income filed on December 28, 1989. This return came to be revised for the first time on March 22, 1990. Subsequently, a second revis...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surat Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR367(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on July 9, 2007, the following substantial question of law came to be framed by the High Court:Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in setting aside the assessment order on the issue of book profit worked out under 115J as also in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the book profit under Section 115J by allowing depreciation under written down value method?2. The assessment year in question is 1989-90, the relevant accounting period being year ended oh March 31, 1989 (comprised of 15 months). The assessee, a limited company, filed return of income and claimed depreciation by adopting the written down value method. The same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and straight line method was adopted on the basis of accounts which were adopted by the general body of assessee-company at the annual general meeting. This exercise was undertaken by the Assessing Officer while computing the figure of book profit under th...
Golden Dragon Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(244)ELT43(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges detention of goods, shipped by the petitioner to India from Hong Kong, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, respondent No. 5 herein as per communication dated 02.01.20092. Upon issuance of notice respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have tendered affidavit-in-reply dated 28.01.2009. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 09.02.2009. As the pleadings are complete and the controversy is limited in scope, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. RULE. Learned Counsel for the respondents is directed to waive service.3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner, a proprietary trading organization, registered under the laws of Hong Kong, is engaged in business of trading in rough diamonds. It is the case of the petitioner that a commission agent in Hong Kong approached the petitioner for shipment of consignment of rough diamonds to buyer...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Khujema Ibrahim Zupadawala and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1519
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.2. By filing this appeal, appellant has challenged award made by Claims Tribunal, Dahod in M.A.C.P No. 2308 of 2004 (Old M.A.C.P. No. 1267 of 1998) dated 2-9-2008 wherein Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,14,089-00 with 9 percent interest in favour of respondents-claimants.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati for appellant has raised contention in respect of prospective income considered by Claims Tribunal. According to him, there is no basis produced by claimants to justify stability in the income and there was no pleading to that effect justifying prospective, future income, and therefore, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in deciding the amount of compensation on the basis of prospective income. He also submitted that looking to the age of deceased 42 years, multiplier of 15 applied by Claims Tribunal is also on higher side. He submitted that no cogent evidence...
Mysore Ammonias Supply Corporation Vs. Kashiben Jashbhai Patel and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1768
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. M. Patel with learned Advocate Mr. Varun K. Patel appearing on behalf of the appellant.2. The appellant has challenged judgment passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Vadodara in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 44 of 1991 dated 23rd April, 1998 Exh. 76. The Commissioner has awarded Rs. 63,920/- with penalty Rs. 31,960/- in favour of respondent-claimant.3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel vehemently raised contention before this Court that employee having died on account of 'Aortic Aneurysm with rupture of Aneurysm with cardio-respiratory failure' as per the case pleaded, but not admitted by appellant, has not considered by Commissioner and Commissioner has committed gross error in coming to conclusion that injury was caused on account of accident 'arising out of and in the course of his employment' as contemplated by Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Patel also raised contentio...
Medical Officer, Class - Ii Vs. State of Gujarat and 4 ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)3GLR2104
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.1. Common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions and hence, we are disposing of all these cases by a common judgment.Special Civil Application No. 98 of 2008 is being considered as the lead case. Petitioner therein is working as a Medical Officer, Class-II in Health and Family Welfare Department. He has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Rule 1.2 provided under the Rules framed by third respondent University for admission to Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Medical Course. Rule 1.2 of the eligibility criteria reads as follows:1.2 The candidates must have completed the recognized M.B.B.S or equivalent course from University within Gujarat State and completed compulsory rotating internship before the date of interview. The candidate who has passed MBBS from Deemed University from Gujarat State will not be eligible. All candidates shall have to submit the documentary proof from the Dean of college regarding the date of comp...
Assistant Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Synbiotics Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Guj)46
D.A. Mehta, J.1. At the time of admission on 6th Dec, 2000 following two questions were formulated by the High Court as substantial questions of law:1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the sale of bulk drugs by the assessee to its sister concern at a price lower than the price fixed by the Government should not be treated as deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the GT Act ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the deemed gift in the assessee's case was exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the GT Act ?2. All the appeals have been heard together as common issue is involved for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86 under the GT Act, 1958 (the Act).3. Before proceeding further it may be noted that insofar as question No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal has categorically observed:.With regard to the other grounds i.e. applicability of Sections 45(c), 45(d) and Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Act which are not required to be discussed, since we ha...
Tensile Steel Ltd. and anr. Vs. Natwarsingh Udesingh Raj
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-2009
Reported in: (2009)2GLR1820; (2010)ILLJ424Guj
K.M. Thaker, J.1. Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Ms. Vinita Vinayak and Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned Advocates for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions, Rule.1.1. In view of the fact that in all the petitions, a common order has been impugned which relates to controversy concerning gratuity, Rule is made returnable forthwith and at the request and with the consent of all concerned, the petitions are taken upon for final hearing. Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa and Ms. Vinita Vinayak, learned Advocates for the respondents have waived service of notice of Rule. Since, the original order of adjudicating authority is a common order for all applications and as all the petitions raise common issues, they all are decided by this common judgment and order.1.2. In the captioned group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged a common order dated 29th October, 2007, in Gratuity Application Nos. 20 to 68 of 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »