Gujarat Court July 2014 Judgments
Phelix Appliances Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4 (2)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 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 31.07.2013 passed in ITA No.2536/AHD/2012 for AY 2009-10, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law. "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the lower authorities in not allowing set off of business loss against income from house property as provided under Section 70 of the Act? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in passing an unreasonable order devoid of any cogent reasons for rejection?" 2. That the assessee filed return of income for the year consideration declaring total income at Rs.18,58,721/-. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (her...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad- III Vs. Sandip Kiritbhai Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-21-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these tax appeals and as such they arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") and as such with respect to the same the assessee but different assessment years, both these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common order. 2. Both these tax appeals have been preferred by the Revenue challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in ITA No.2312/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and ITA No.2029/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said appeals preferred by the Revenue and has modified the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.5 lac instead of Rs.40 lac made by the AO [for the year AY 2008-09] and restricting the disallowance of Rs.4.50 lac instead...
Tag this Judgment!ADCI DYE CHEM (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and pertain to the same assessee and when heard together as a matter of convenience, therefore, we dispose of all these appeals together by this common order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 07.01.2005 passed in ITA No.806/AHD/1999 for the AY 1994-95, ITA No.807/ AHD/ 1999 for the AY 1995- 96 and ITA No.1475/AHD/2000 for the AY 1996-97, common appellant - assessee has preferred present Tax Appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law. Tax Appeal No.1346 of 2005 "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was right in law in confirming that the appellant was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Central Excise Duty set off of Rs. 41,43,478/- a...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Another Vs. Pwd Employees ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-16-2014
R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been filed by the appellants challenging the common judgment and order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11280 of 2013 and cognate matters allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants herein to grant benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the respondents as well as other benefits as directed and clarified by this Court in the judgment and order dated 18.3.2011 recorded in Letters Patent Appeal No.958 of 2011. 2. The brief facts which emerge from the case on hand could be summarized as under:- 2.1 The petitioners in Special Civil Application No.1563 of 1992 were appointed as daily wagers with the respondent Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as Board for sake of convenience and brevity) upto the year 1988 and all are given benefits flowing from the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988 wher...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Kanjibhai Patel through Poa Holder Vinodkumar Vs. State of Gu ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-15-2014
Cav Judgment: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This Special Civil Application has been referred to a Larger Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Jayant Patel and Mohinder Pal, JJ. under the following circumstances :- 1.1 The writ-petitioner had filed this Special Civil Application for quashing and setting aside the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act hereafter), dated 30th January, 2008 and the further Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 29th April 2008 by which , the land of the petitioner bearing original Survey No.25/2 and 25/3 and 25/4 (now final plot No.50) was acquired. 1.2 When the matter was at the final hearing stage before the referring Bench, the said Bench decided to call for the original file from the State-respondent and it appears from the original file of the State Government that after the proposal was received by the Government, there were various correspondences, but the most important aspect was that the State G...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oshwal Education Trust
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-14-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in ITA No. 84/Rjt/2013 for A.Y. 2007-08, whereby, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and cancelled the penalty of Rs.12,81,560 imposed under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act, the appellant- Revenue has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed question of law; "2. (A) Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the ITAT is justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under the provisions of Section 27(1)(c)?" 2. The assessee-Trust filed its return for the A.Y. 2007-08 on 31.10.2007, declaring total deficit of Rs.2,46,59,903. The assessment was completed under Section 143(2) of the Act on 29.12.2009, determining the total income of Rs.55,29,360. It appears that during the course of scrutiny proceedings, it was obse...
Tag this Judgment!Prime Co Op Bank Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the order passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-D) and to quash that part of the assessment order of Respondent No.1(Annexure-B), by which it has been held that Rs.6,96,778/- received by it towards interest from investment of voluntary reserve is taxable income and it is also further prayed to direct Respondent No.1 to pass an order holding that the said income is income from banking business, and therefore, liable for exemption under Section 80P of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner, a Cooperative Bank, filed return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 and claimed exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the amount of interest, i.e. Rs.6,96,778/-, received by it through investment in (1) Karnataka Bank, Rs.1,71,301/-, (2) Sardar Sarovar Nigam Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Others Vs. V.M. Vasant
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant-original defendant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2013 of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamnagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1996, dismissing the said Appeal, in turn, confirming judgment and decree dated 7th June, 1996 of learned 4th Joint Civil Judge(J.D.), Jamnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No.1038 of 1982. 1.1 Both the Courts below held that the order of termination of services of the respondent-original plaintiff, a Probationary Development Inspector, working with the appellant company, was illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. 2. The plaintiff in his Civil Suit prayed for declaration and permanent injunction that the order dated 20.10.1982 passed by the Regional Manager of the appellant company was illegal and further to restrain the defendants from implementing the said o...
Tag this Judgment!Umiya Traders and Another Vs. Authorised Officer of Bank of Baroda and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
Oral Judgment: Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Prashant Pandit, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Sandip C. Bhatt, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nalini S. Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.3.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, In-charge of Mumbai by which delay condonation application being Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 2013 in Appeal No.20 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that there was delay of 355 days in preferring the appeal and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, the delay was liable to be condoned and the appeal is required to be heard and decided on merits. The reason for delay as mentioned in the delay condonation application was that the petitioner was trying to settle the matter with the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›