Gujarat Court January 2015 Judgments
Gujarat Flourochemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. As the present matter is directed by the Apex Court to be heard at the earliest, we have taken up the matter and heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides for final disposal. 2. We may briefly record that the petitioner has preferred the petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for various reliefs, inter alia, for appropriate direction to the respondents to award compensation by way of an interest on the amount of refund for the period from July 1, 1987 to November 13, 1990. This petition was earlier finally heard and decided by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: J. M. Panchal and Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.J.) vide judgement dated 3.7.2007 and this Court, for the reasons recorded in the order, more particularly based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 643/150 Taxman 591 had issued the following directions: "10. It may be mentioned that the above quoted instruction ...
Tag this Judgment!Atir Textile Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-2015
S.H.Vora, J. 1. Since both the appeals arising out of common substantial question of law, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 1.1 Since both the appeals involve same and identical facts and law except to the extent of the amount and assessment year, they are decided together by taking into consideration facts of Tax Appeal No.156 of 2001 as base in the matter. 2. The Assessee - Atir Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd. is in the present appeal against the judgment dated 19.03.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, the 'Tribunal') whereby, the Tribunal upheld dis-allowance of interest amounting to Rs.19,50,000/- claimed as deduction of interest under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'). Hence, the appellant - Assessee is before this Court by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Act raising following substantial question of law in appeal for our consideration: "(a) Whether the Tribunal was right in l...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Bhanubhai Chandubhai Miyatra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.11.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Corruption) and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 9, Bharuch in Special (ACB) Case No. 11 of 2003, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused Bhanubhai Chandubhai Miyatra was serving as unarmed police constable in Ankleshwar Police Station as a public servant. That the complainant was doing the business of foreign liquor. The accused police constable demanded "hafta" from him. On the complainant not agreeing to the same, on 1.7.2003, at about 8.00 O'clock by taking him from his residence, an offence under the Prohibition Act was registered ag...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Bhanubhai Chandubhai Miyatra
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-27-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.11.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (Corruption) and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 9, Bharuch in Special (ACB) Case No. 11 of 2003, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused Bhanubhai Chandubhai Miyatra was serving as unarmed police constable in Ankleshwar Police Station as a public servant. That the complainant was doing the business of foreign liquor. The accused police constable demanded "hafta" from him. On the complainant not agreeing to the same, on 1.7.2003, at about 8.00 O'clock by taking him from his residence, an offence under the Prohibition Act was registered ag...
Tag this Judgment!Sarfaraz @ Sappan Tal Abbasmiya Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara city, dated 22 nd October 2014, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labelling him as a "dangerous person" as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three cases registered with the Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, vide II-CR No.120 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, vide I-CR No.269 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 326 r...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjanbhai @ Arjun Shivkaran Shrivastav Vs. State of Gujarat and Other ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 15th October 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. I take notice of the fact that the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'. I also take notice of the fact that in the grounds of detention order dated 15 th October 2014, the detaining authority has relied upon two cases registered with the Mandvi Police Station vide III-CR No.411 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act, and vide III-CR No.111 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act Section 2(b) of the PASA Act defines the term 'bootlegger', which reads as under:- "S.2(b)...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjanbhai @ Arjun Shivkaran Shrivastav Vs. State of Gujarat and Other ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 15th October 2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. I take notice of the fact that the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'. I also take notice of the fact that in the grounds of detention order dated 15 th October 2014, the detaining authority has relied upon two cases registered with the Mandvi Police Station vide III-CR No.411 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act, and vide III-CR No.111 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act Section 2(b) of the PASA Act defines the term 'bootlegger', which reads as under:- "S.2(b)...
Tag this Judgment!Sarfaraz @ Sappan Tal Abbasmiya Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has challenged the order of detention passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara city, dated 22 nd October 2014, in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and has also prayed for an order to set him free from detention. The order of detention along with the grounds supplied to the detenue are suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has been detained labelling him as a "dangerous person" as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the PASA Act. The grounds of detention are also suggestive of the fact that the detaining authority has taken into consideration three cases registered with the Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, vide II-CR No.120 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, vide I-CR No.269 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 326 r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Himatsinh Kadvabbai Baria
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Case No. 9 of 1996, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) and 13(1) of the Rice Polished Regulation Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on receiving information about the illegal work of rice polishing was being done by the accused person in his house, and therefore, on 20.2.1996, Officers of Civil Supplies Department have visited the premises and found that the accused is doing the rice polishing work without any pass or permit in his premises. Therefore, Superintendent of Civil Supplies Department has submitted his report to the District Magistrate. On 25.7.1996, the District Magistrate has ordered to lodge complaint be...
Tag this Judgment!Kantibhai Devsibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
CAV Judgment: 1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned matters are interrelated those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted of the offence under Sections 213, 214, 217 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the strength of a First Information Report registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat vide I-CR No.37/2013. 3. Case of the prosecution:- 3.1 A person, by name Asaram Bapu claims to be a Saint. His son, namely, Narayansai also claims to be a Saint. The father and son have many Ashrams all over the State and one of those is situated at Ahmedabad. On 11th December, 2013 Shri J. K. Zala, Asst. Commissioner of Police, 'D' Dvn., Surat City lodged a First Information Report referred to above making a reference in the same of one other offence registered on 6/10/2013 at the Jahangirpura Police Station vide C.R. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »