Gujarat Court May 2014 Judgments
Junagadh District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar C. Par ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Rajkot in Appeal (IC) No. 02 of 2003 dated 29.10.2005, under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. By the said order, the Industrial Court has interfered in the order passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in BIR Application No. 20 of 1998 dated 24.01.2003 and it is quashed and set aside. The Labour Court had rejected the demand of the employee for regularization of his service on the post of Peon-cum-Clerk, which, in appeal, is partly accepted by the Industrial Court. By the impugned order, the action of the employer of discontinuing the service of the concerned employee, which was an attempt to make the proceedings infructuous, is also set aside. The employee is ordered to be reinstated in service with 75% back wages. He is treated to be in regular employment of the bank as a Peon with effect from 01.01.2001, the date on which his immediate junior is regularized in servi...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Environment Protection Committee Vs. State of Gujarat an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner, a Registered Association, namely: Gujarat State Environment Protection Committee, has prayed for the following reliefs:- 20. The petitioner, therefore, approach this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pray that, Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by granting the following prayers:- (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in allocating the lands to the private respondent No.6 herein Ultratech Cement Limited approximately admeasuring 60.33.66 Hector-Are-Sq. Mtrs. Of total 89 survey numbers, as described in the order of the Collector dated 31.12.2011 at Annexure-D for industrial purpose by the State Government be decla...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2014
Ms. Sonia Gokani, J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice of reopening issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in connection with the assessment year 2006-07 in the following factual background : 1.1 The petitioner for the said assessment year submitted a return of income reflecting his total income at Rs.64,65,144/-. A notice under 143(2) of the Act followed by a notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on June 21, 2007 and September 19, 2008 respectively. In the said notices, details of unsecured loans received by the petitioner were required to be furnished. Yet another notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated September 19, 2008 had followed. All the details as directed by the respondent had been furnished, which included the details of unsecured loans vide communication dated November 27, 2008. 1.2 Yet another notice dated December 03, 2008 c...
Tag this Judgment!Synbiotics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 4
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-06-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of the petition. 2. Petitioner has challenged a notice dated 26th March 2013 issued by the respondent-Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"the Act" for short}. 3. Brief facts are as under : The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. For the Assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed its return of income on 31st March 2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1.77 Crores [rounded off]. In such return, the petitioner had claimed set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation allowance of Rs. 4.26 Crores [rounded off] pertaining to the period between A.Y 1984-85 to A.Y 2007-08 against the petitioner's income from long term capital gains arising during the year under consideration. Such return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. He framed assessment on 29th December 2010 assessing the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 13.52 Crores [rounded o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax - I Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions for our consideration: œA. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.25.43 lacs despite the fact that the corresponding quantum additions were already confirmed by the CIT(A)? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not appreciating the fact that when furnishing of inaccurate particulars has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return, then such amount is considered as income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished, as per clause (a) of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)?? The issue pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the record, it emerges that even after the disputed additions, the assessee-company continued to pay tax of minimum alternative basis under section 115JB of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held and observed as und...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax - I Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-05-2014
Akil Kureshi, J. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following questions for our consideration: A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.25.43 lacs despite the fact that the corresponding quantum additions were already confirmed by the CIT(A)? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in not appreciating the fact that when furnishing of inaccurate particulars has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return, then such amount is considered as income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished, as per clause (a) of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)? The issue pertains to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the record, it emerges that even after the disputed additions, the assessee-company continued to pay tax of minimum alternative basis under section 115JB of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, held and observed as under: 4. W...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›