Gujarat Court November 2014 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.
Vishwa Intermediates and Chemicals Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Gujarat Ind ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Saiyad learned advocate with Mr. Motiramani, learned advocate for the petitioners. 2. Though respondent No.3, or in that case even respondent Nos. 1 or 2, have not filed Caveat, Mr. Sikandar M. Pathan learned advocate is present for respondent No.3. He is also heard. 3. In present petition the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:- "7(A) that the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and / or certiorari and / or a writ in the mandamus and / or certiorari to quash and set aside the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad below Misc. Application (Exh. R/100) in Appeal (Securitisation Application) No. 19/2008 and be further pleased to appoint another Court Commissioner for submitting report as per Misc. Application (Exh. R/100)." 3.1 The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2014 whereby the learned tribunal, in respect of the applicat...
Imtiyazbhai @ Into Sahebkhan Kureshi Vs. State Of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
Oral Order: 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No.I- 33 of 2014 with Umalla Police Station, Bharuch. 2. Since the respondent State of Gujarat has opposed this bail application mainly on the ground that this application is filed for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of the Criminal Procedure and since the applicant has committed the offence under the provision of SC/ST Act, hence he is not entitled for such prayer which is specifically barred under the provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 3. Brief facts arise from the record are as under: 3.1 That one lady namely Afsana - wife of the Kalubhai, one of the accused in the present case, eloped with one Anilbhai and stayed at Allahabad for few days. Subsequently pursuant to compromise arrived at between the parties, the said lady we...
Vishwa Intermediates and Chemicals Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. Gujarat Ind ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Saiyad learned advocate with Mr. Motiramani, learned advocate for the petitioners. 2. Though respondent No.3, or in that case even respondent Nos. 1 or 2, have not filed Caveat, Mr. Sikandar M. Pathan learned advocate is present for respondent No.3. He is also heard. 3. In present petition the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:- "7(A) that the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and / or certiorari and / or a writ in the mandamus and / or certiorari to quash and set aside the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad below Misc. Application (Exh. R/100) in Appeal (Securitisation Application) No. 19/2008 and be further pleased to appoint another Court Commissioner for submitting report as per Misc. Application (Exh. R/100)." 3.1 The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2014 whereby the learned tribunal, in respect of the applicat...
Poonamben Gulabbhai Pimple Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr.Apurva Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.N.J.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in case of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-3 of 2014 registered with Ahwa Police Station, Dang for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr.Apurva Dave, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail lookin...
State Of Gujarat Vs. Award Engineers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. Oral Order: 1. This application is filed by the State Government seeking condonation of delay of 2432 days in filing the Tax Appeal. The Tax Appeal is directed against the judgement dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No.27/2005. The issue before the Tribunal arose out of an appeal filed by the respondent assessee questioning the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 62 of the Sales Tax Act, 1969. Such provision envisage determination by the Commissioner, any question which arises otherwise than in proceedings before the Court or proceedings under section 41 or 44 of the said Act. 2. In the present case, the question came up for consideration was whether the contract for fabrication of different goods entered into by the respondent assessee with the Surat Municipal Corporation was in the nature of a works contract. The Tribunal overturned the decision of the Commissioner and allowed the ...
Income-tax Officer Vs. Bombaywala Readymade Stores
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2014
K.J. Thaker, J. 1. By way of this Tax Appeal, the only argument canvassed by learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. K.M. Parikh is that there is concealment of Income by the opponent. Learned Counsel has relied on the ground B. of the Memo of the Appeal which reads as under : "B. That the Hon'ble Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT (A) cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,95,410/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act holding that since no return of income had been filed by the assessee, the assessee could not be penalized for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and further holding that since the income is assessed on estimate basis penalty for concealment of income is not leviable, ignoring the fact that the inaction of not filing return of income itself can be considered as act of concealment of particulars of income, thus, provisions of section 27(1)(c) i...
Poonamben Gulabbhai Pimple Vs. State Of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr.Apurva Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.N.J.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in case of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-3 of 2014 registered with Ahwa Police Station, Dang for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr.Apurva Dave, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail lookin...
Commissioner of Income-tax- III Vs. Tirupati Construction Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2014
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Since, all these appeals involve common questions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. This group of appeals is preferred by the appellant-Revenue against a common order passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench "B", Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2010 for the Assessment Year 2004-05, IT(SS)A No. 74/Ahd/2010 for the Assessment Year 2005-06, IT(SS)A No. 75/Ahd/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07, Dated : 13.11.2013, raising the following common questions of law; "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT (Appeal)'s order that the peak of unexplained receipts and payments only should be brought to tax, without appreciating that there is no evidence in the seized papers of such nexus between the receipts and payments so as to show that the same funds have been rotated by the assessee? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in ...
State Of Gujarat Vs. Award Engineers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. Oral Order: 1. This application is filed by the State Government seeking condonation of delay of 2432 days in filing the Tax Appeal. The Tax Appeal is directed against the judgement dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No.27/2005. The issue before the Tribunal arose out of an appeal filed by the respondent assessee questioning the decision of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 62 of the Sales Tax Act, 1969. Such provision envisage determination by the Commissioner, any question which arises otherwise than in proceedings before the Court or proceedings under section 41 or 44 of the said Act. 2. In the present case, the question came up for consideration was whether the contract for fabrication of different goods entered into by the respondent assessee with the Surat Municipal Corporation was in the nature of a works contract. The Tribunal overturned the decision of the Commissioner and allowed the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›