Gujarat Court March 2015 Judgments
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5 Vs. Ashwin Kantilal Raval
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, 'C' Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 05.09.2014 passed in ITA No.314/Ahd/2013 for A.Y. 2009-2010 by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.56,04,681/-claimed as indirect expenses including interest on Reliance Capital loan and deleting the addition of Rs.73,48,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, the Revenue has preferred the present tax appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law: ” "(A)Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs.56,04,681/-claimed as indirect expenses including interest on Reliance Capital loan when the assessee has not shown any business income?(B)Whether the Appellate Tribunal has...
Tag this Judgment!Vimadaben Navinchandra Varsani and Others Vs. Mamad Ismail Kumbhar and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-2015
Oral Judgment: (Jayant Patel, J.) 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.475/98, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,88,560/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 30.12.1997 at about 10.45 p.m., near Saiyadpar at Bhuj-Anjar Highway road when the deceased Navinbhai, while driving the Jeep bearing Registration No.GUX 8547, was going towards Gandhidham, one Luxury Bus bearing Registration No.GJ12T 4178 came from the opposite direction with excessive speed and dashed with the jeep. Resultantly, the accident occurred and the deceased Navinbhai sustained injuries with the other persons, who were also injured in the accident. The claim petition was filed by the dependent members of the family of deceased Navinbhai for the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- being MACP No.475/98. It may be recorded that the other claim petitions were also filed by the other injure...
Tag this Judgment!Jayesh @ Ebha Merubhai Chavda Through his Father Merubhai Devubhai Cha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 23 January, 2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Revision Application No. 111 of 2014 by which the Revisional Court rejected the Revision Application filed by the applicant herein, thereby affirming the order dated 20th December, 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junagadh below Exhibit-8 in the Criminal Case No.2329 of 2014. 2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under :- 2.1 A first Information Report came to be registered before the Junagadh 'A' Division Police Station vide C.R. No. I-81 of 2014 of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 3. The applicant herein has been named in the FIR as one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sachin @ Devendra Gajanand Sangray Vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the first information report registered with the Athvalines Police Station, Surat City, vide I C.R. No.47 of 2012 of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. 2. The respondent No.2-original first informant although served with the Notice issued by this Court, dated 13th October, 2014 for final disposal yet has chosen not to appear either in person or through an advocate. This application has gone unopposed so far as the first informant is concerned. 3. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:- 3.1. The first informant and the applicant herein were serving with the Tata AIG Life Insurance Company at Surat. The first informa...
Tag this Judgment!Niko Resources Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Deceased and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
Cav Judgment: 1. Rule. Mr. Goswami waive service of notice of rule for respondent no.2 while Ms. Jhaveri waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 3. Petitioner is father of the victim, whereas, respondent no.1 is prosecuting agency, whereas, respondent nos.2 to 5 are original accused in Sessions Case no.154 of 2008. By impugned judgment and order in such Sessions case, the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad (Rural) has acquitted all of them from offences under Sections 302, 507, 324, 201 and 114 of I.P.C. read with Section 135(1) of the B.P. Act. Therefore, this is a revision application against the order of acquittal. Thereby, practically, the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. However, to ascertain the irregularity and illegality, if any, committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused are concerned, I have verified and scrutinized the available record and impugned judgment. H...
Tag this Judgment!Niko Resources Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-26-2015
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as "Production Sharing Contract" (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of "mineral oil". The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Dollyben Kantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Order: [1] Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith. Special Civil Application Nos.3532 to Special Civil Application No.3534 of 2015 are preferred to challenge the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration and Appeal), Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State in three different appeals preferred by the members of the Gayatrinagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Valkeshwar group, Balasinor group and Alkapuri group) against the order made by the District Registrar for winding up / liquidation of the society and the order dated 04.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Applications preferred against the order passed in above said appeals, whereby the Deputy Secretary rejected the Revision Applications and confirmed the order made by the Additional Registrar. [2] Special Civil Application Nos.3535 of 2015 to Special Civil Application No.3537 of 2015 are preferred to challenge the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Abdulbhai Valibhai Sipai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
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 12.3.2004 passed by the learned 2nd Fast Track Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 62/2002, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 8 and 27 of NDPS Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Shri A.T. Dube, Police Inspector, Savarkundala Taluka Police Station and other staff while on patrolling duty to enquire about gambling and prohibition incidents and were passing by Azad Chowk, at about 13.40 hrs. That while going so, they received information that the accused Abdulbhai Valibhai Sipai is keeping narcotic drugs in his possession and selling the same by preparing packets, is wandering near Luvana Mahajanvadi. Thereupon, the complainant called two panchas and prepared the preliminary panchnama. The...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Prakashkumar Ratilal Panchal and Others
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
Oral Judgment: Akil Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the State calling in question the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.123/91. Respondents-accused were charged with offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Alternatively charge for the offence under section 302 read with section 34/114 of the Indian Penal was also framed under charge Ex.6. 2. Respondent No.1, Prakash Ratilal Panchal was the husband of deceased Meenaben, their marriage having taken place in December 1982. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were her mother-in-law and father-in- law respectively. The prosecution case, in brief, was that all the accused had the habit of quarreling with the deceased. They used to frequently pull her up for household work. Due to this, accused No.1 and the deceased started residing separately. Accused No.1 also used to suspect her character. In the charge Ex.6, it was alleged that on 19th June an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »