Gujarat Court June 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.
Bhavesh Kantilal Kadecha Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition for the following reliefs:15( A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow and admit this petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Panchyat Rural and Housing Department. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in class IV from the date of his application i.e. 15.03.2005 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to confer upon the petitioner all consequential service benefits. (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in Class IV provisionally. 2. The petition has a chequered history. The petitioners father namely Kantilal Narbherambhai Kudecha died in harness o...
Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Ankit C. Maheshwari
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-10-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Dated : 16.09.2013, passed in ITA No. 742/Ahd/2013 for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law; "(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that there was no allegation that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly all material facts and totally ignoring that in this case Explanation 1 to Proviso 1 of Section 147 of the Act is squarely applicable? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that requirement of proviso 1 to Section 147 of the Act was not complied with though no opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer in the origi...
Dahyabhai J Patel (Since Deceased)Through Heirs Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-2014
Cav Judgment: 1. The petitioner, who died pending the petition and whose heirs are brought on record, has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 17/02/1990 as also the order of his suspension dated 09/09/1981. Though the petitioner also sought declaration that Rule 10 (3) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1986 is ultra virus to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India however, this prayer was not pressed by the petitioner as recored in the order dated 12/03/1990. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that he joined services as Extension Officer in year 1956 and promoted in the month of June, 1975 as Taluka Development Officer (TDO), however, came to be suspended by order dated 09/09/1981 and then was served with chargesheet dated 03/08/1982. Before he was suspended he had put in 31 years of blotless service. He filed two different petitions in the year 19881990, challenging his continuous suspension for more than 7 years. The petitioner ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharamshi B. Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-09-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dated July 5, 2013, in I. T. A. No. 1116/Ahd/2010 for the assessment year 1995-96 deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeal raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in not upholding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), without appreciating that the assessee had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation to show as to why the impugned income was not disclosed by him in his return and not offered for tax even though the said income was undoubtedly ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›