Gujarat Court June 2014 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Niranjanbapu Education and Charitable ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 653/Rjt/2012, by which, the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the original applicant-Trust, Rajkot and has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1 under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, the present appellant has preferred this Tax Appeal to consider the proposed substantial question of law: "(A) Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in granting registration to assessee trust under section 12A ?" 2. We have heard Mr. Pranav G. Desai learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. We have also gone through the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 28.9.2012 as well as impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sai Infosystem India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals and are arising out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") raising the similar issues but with respect to different assessment years of the same assessee, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. 1.1 Tax Appeal No. 536 of 2014 has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2508/Ahd/2009, dated August 23, 2013, for the assessment year 2004-05. 1.2 Tax Appeal No. 537 of 2014 has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2509/Ahd/2009, dated August 23, 2013, for the assessment year 2005-06. 1.3 Tax Appeal No. 538 of 2014 has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2510/Ahd/2009, dated August 23, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sai Infosystem India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals and are arising out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") raising the similar issues but with respect to different assessment years of the same assessee, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order. 1.1 Tax Appeal No. 536 of 2014 has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2508/Ahd/2009, dated August 23, 2013, for the assessment year 2004-05. 1.2 Tax Appeal No. 537 of 2014 has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2509/Ahd/2009, dated August 23, 2013, for the assessment year 2005-06. 1.3 Tax Appeal No. 538 of 2014 has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2510/Ahd/2009, dated August 23, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Rajnikant Chotalal Pitwa
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-21-2014
Oral Judgment 1. This petition is directed against the judgement of the Labour Court, Junagadh dated 6.12.2006 in Complaint Case No.4/2002. Brief facts are as under : 2. The petitioner Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (the Board for short) had engaged the respondent as a typist. Though there is some dispute about the nature and the terms on which he was so engaged, it is undisputed that he worked as a typist from March 1998 till June 2002. On 13.12.2001, the Union of the workers made an application to the Board on behalf of respondent workman pointing out that he was engaged as a typist since March 1998, initially on a fixed salary of Rs.900/per month. Later on he was being paid on daily wage basis. Since last two months he was paid once again fixed salary, this time at the rate of 1300/per month. The salary comes to less than minimum wages fixed by the Government. He has been discharging duties sincerely and honestly for more than three years. His service therefore, may be regu...
Tag this Judgment!Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Vishwanbi Security Agency Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-2014
Oral Judgment: Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. We have heard Mr. K.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the interim order granted by learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2014 in Special Civil Application No.5473 of 2014 by which the learned Single Judge has stayed the impugned order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad on application Exh.7 in Reference (CGITA) No.52 of 2013. 3. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 1.4.2014 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1057 of 2013 has held that Letters Patent Appeal against interlocutory order is not maintainable. The said judgment is extracted below :- The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge i...
Tag this Judgment!B.H. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. As both these petitions arise out of the common impugned order dated 25.05.2001 passed by the Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, both these petitions are decided and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By way of present petitions, the petitioners have prayed to: (A) quash and set aside the impugned punishment order dated 25.05.2001, Annexure-A to this petition, and (B) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 4.1.2008, Annexure-B to this petition, and 3. The short facts leading to the present petitions are that both the petitioners i.e. Shri B. H. Patel and Shri N. B. Nayee, while working as Head Clerk and Senior Clerk respectively with the respondent authorities did not bring the true facts regarding services of one Shri Arvind R. Parmar to the notice of the higher officer. The petitioners had made detail noting with regard to regularization of services of Shri Arvind Parmar. The aforesaid noting was forwarded to the...
Tag this Judgment!PUCL Gujarat Chapter and Another Vs. Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
Oral Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. By this Misc. Civil Application, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent/State of Gujarat to immediately forward all documents in terms of the directions given in the order dated 14th October 2013 and in paragraph 20 of the very order passed in Misc. Civil Application No.3101 of 2012 in connection with the Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.216 of 2012. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondent-Commission to immediately give access to the petitioner to all the documents sought for by him without going into the aspect of relevancy and confidentiality pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this court dated 14th October 2013. Other consequential reliefs have also been prayed for. 2. A Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.216 of 2012 was filed by the two petitioners, the present petitioner being the petitioner No.2 therein, thereby praying for direct...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Patel Education Trust Vs. Hemchandracharya South Gujarat Universi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 University and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2-National Council for Teacher Education. Having regard to the facts of the case and the urgency of the matter, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: 7. In view of the aforesaid premises, the Petitioner most humbly prays that: (A) This Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Resolution No.2(8) passed by the Executive Council of Hemchandracharya Uttar Gujarat University, Respondent No.1 herein and direct Respondent No.1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Ahmedabad Management Associatio ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-13-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dated 22/03/2013 in ITA No. 159/Ahd/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by which the tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee holding that the activities of the assessee were in the filed of education and the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and consequently quashed and set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,42,11,129/- with the proposed following substantial question of law; "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the activities of the assessee are in the field of education and that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Jamanbhai Maganbhai Mavani and Another Vs. Bhanuben Maganbhai Mavani a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-12-2014
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji in Special Civil Suit No.59 of 2011, whereby, the learned Judge has passed preliminary decree holding the share of the original plaintiffs to the extent of 1/5th and has further directed the appointment of Commissioner and the account to be submitted of the properties. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs [herein after referred to as the 'Sisters'] have filed the suit for partition of the coparcenary property of their father's family contending interalia that they are daughters of the deceased Maganbhai Mohanbhai Mavani and the defendants are the brothers, in possession of the family property and they are entitled to the share in the family property. 3. The appellant together with respondent No.3 defendants had resisted the suit contending interalia that the will was executed by the father during...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »