Gujarat Court January 2015 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.
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. ...
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...
Jayantibhai Mohanbhia Patel Vs. Union of India - Department of Commerc ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
1. We have heard Mr. Zubin F. Bharda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Mr. N.D. Gohil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no1, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2,3,5 and 6 and Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned AGP, appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. This writ-petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be a freelance journalist and also is running a hotel on National Highway No. 59 near village Kathlal, praying for the following reliefs:- [A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction to appoint any person having technical know-how of construction of National Highway along with a retired Judge of the High Court or a Judge of subordinate Court not below the rank of retired District Judge to inquire into the entire affairs in awarding contract of construction of National Highway Toll Road of National Highway No. 59 betw...
SKY Diamonds Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mehta, learned Standing Counsel, waives notice of Rule. The matter is finally heard with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides. 2. The only question which may arise for consideration in the present matter is "Whether the bar of four years provided by first proviso of section 147 of the Income Tax Act can be made applicable to the facts of the present case or not? 3. The relevant facts are that as per the petitioner, for the assessment year 2008-2009, the scrutiny was made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the petitioner submitted detailed letter on various points connected with the return of income tax filed under section 139 of the Act. On 18.11.2010, during the course of regular assessment, in reply to the notice under section 142(1), the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner, vide letter, had submitted various documents including the audit report and the details about the s...
Hitech Outsourcing Services Vs. Income-tax Officer-Ward 6 (2)
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Nitin Mehta, learned counsel appears for respondents no.1 to 3 and waives notice. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 2. The only question arise for consideration in the present matter is "Whether the order below the stay application could be passed by respondent no.2 without recording any reasons or not?" 3. The relevant facts show that after the AO passed the order of assessment and made the demand of tax of Rs.2,07,55,490/- for the assessment year 2011-2012, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) contending inter alia that it was only a typographical error for claiming the benefit under section 10A, though wrongly typed as 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the "Act"). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner preferred stay application. However, below stay application, vide order dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure D), the said stay application has ...
Commissioner of Income-tax-I Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. Considering the facts and circumstances, Tax Appeal Nos.817 of 2013 to 818 of 2013 with Tax Appeal No.18 of 2014 and Tax Appeal No.149 of 2014 are detached from the group and the present appeals shall be separately considered. 2. Both these appeals are admitted on the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and circumstance of case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made on account of expenses incurred for replacement of membrane cells-II, treating the same as capital expenditure, by following the rule of consistency and without considering the issues on merits?" 3. We have heard Mr. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue and Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Assessee. 4. The short facts of the case appear to be that the A.O., for the A.Y. 1999-2000, vide order dated 26.03.2002, treated expenditure of Rs.25,13,20,259/- for replacement of re-membraning in membrane Cell-I plant as c...
Neo Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-16-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. As in the present group of appeals, substantial questions of law, to some extent, are interconnected and they are also common in certain group, they are being considered simultaneously. We may record that in order to appreciate the respective questions formulated in the respective matters, the questions can be reformulated and thereafter based on the answer, in facts of each case, the ultimate decision can be recorded. 2. In our view, mainly two substantial questions of law would arise in the present group of matters as referred to hereinafter and to be specific in the first group of matter, comprising of Tax Appeal No.20 of 2001, ITR No.28 of 2000, ITR No.25 of 2003, ITR No.74 of 1996 and ITR No.141 of 1996, following question would be required to be considered:- "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in holding that since some or all beneficiaries of the Trust are discretionary Trust, to the extent of...
Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Jayant Patel, J. 1. In all appeals, common question of law has been formulated by the revenue for consideration of this court. The same reads as under: "Whether on facts and in law the ITAT was right in holding that payment of uniform allowance etc. to the employees by the assessee is liable for FBT and by holding so it did not consider the fact that the payment of uniform allowance was nothing but additional salary paid in the form of an allowance within the meaning of section 17(1)(iv) attracting the TDS provisions of section 192 of the I.T. Act?" 2. The common facts are that AO found that the assessee did not deduct TDS from the payment/reimbursement of the allowance for the uniform and therefore, the assessee was found to be treated as in default and the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed by AO. The matter was carried in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and in the appeal, the CIT (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee. The matter was further carried in appeal...
Jasubhai Shivabhai Patel Vs. Election Officer of Sabarkantha District ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction, order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2014 (Annexure-A to the petition) by which the application of the petitioner for recounting of the votes/ballots has been rejected by the Election Officer of the Sabarkantha District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited [hereinafter referred to Milk Producers Union]. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Milk Producers Union was conducted and held on 21.10.2014. That in all there were 16 candidates who contested the election and the petitioner contested the election from Constituency No.13. According to the petitioner the counting of the votes started at 7 am on 22.10.2014 and it came to be concluded at about 11.00 pm in the night. According to the petitioner during the counting of the votes, the Election Officer had re...
Sabirbhai Gulabbhai Shaikh and Another Vs. State Of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-02-2015
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Rakesh Patel for Respondent No.1. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner produced on record order dated 24.12.2014 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No.2898 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No.3151 of 2014, the same is taken on record. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice/order dated 26.12.2014 issued by Respondent No.3, whereby Respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to vacate the possession of land, within a period of 3 days, failing which the possession of the said land would be taken over by the authorities. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute was allotted to the father of the petitioner by Nawab of Palanpur State before more than about 70 to 80 years ago. It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioner that petitioner was elected as Member of Dhanera Nagarpalika in the election condu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »