Court : Gujarat
K.J. Thaker, J. 1. By way these Appeals, the Revenue is before this Court challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in :Tax AppealITA No.Asstt. Year2/20062317/Ahd./19991996-19973/20063429/Ahd/041998-19992. The brief facts as they cull out from the record is that the assessee was assessed to tax by the Appellant. The assessee was a Sitting Judge of the High Court of Gujarat. He was elevated to the Bench on 18.09.1995. Prior to this, he was practicing as an Advocate in the High Court of Gujarat. After being elevated to the post of Judge of High Court and for this reason he had discontinued his legal profession as an advocate. The assessee received certain outstanding dues from his past clients. Such amounts for the previous year relevant to A.Y. 1996-97 is Rs.4,52,277/- and for A.Y. 1998-99 is Rs.13,93,630/-. The assessee in his returns of income for both the years has claimed these amounts as non-taxable relying on the judgments in the case of CIT v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)3GLR1982
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the instant Appeals are preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to read with Section 36B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act') against the judgment and Order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, on 28th of January, 2004, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 2000 and Sessions Case No. 295 of 2000, whereby the present appellant Smt. Najmunisha, wife of Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu, accused No. 1, came to be convicted by the trial Court, for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) to read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. Though, she was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, but no separate sentence was imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)222CTR(Guj)132; [2008]305ITR386(Guj); [2010]186TAXMAN321(Guj)
H.B. Antani, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office and business at Surat. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Director General of Income-tax (Exemption), Calcutta, dated March 31, 1997, by which the petitioner was not given the benefit under Section 80-IA(4)(iii)) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', hereinafter). It is submitted that the petitioner is running a hotel in Surat and the respondent is the prescribed authority who approves hotels for the purpose of Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act read with Rule 18BBC of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules', hereinafter). If the petitioner hotel is approved by the respondent under the aforesaid provisions, then the petitioner will get relief at the specified rate in respect of the profit earned from the hotel. The petitioner made an application for approval of its hotel under the aforesaid provisions. The relevant portion of the Section and the rule are quoted hereunder:Section 80I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1644
K.A. Puj, J.1. The applicant has taken out this Judge's Summons seeking leave of this Court under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 to continue the HRP Suit No. 1065 of 2006 filed by him against the opponents for the reliefs prayed for in the said suit comprising of the relief for the actual and physical possession of the suit premises as well as for decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits and for permanent injunction restraining the opponents from transferring, assigning or parting with the possession, in any manner, of the suit premises. With the leave of the Court, the applicant has also prayed for alternative relief seeking direction to the opponents to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question, namely, ground floor premises of 8, Hindu Colony, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009 to the applicant.2. This Court has issued notice on 10.03.2008 making it returnable on 19.03.2008. Mr. J.S. Yadav, learned advocate appeared for the Official Liquidator a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)2GLR1199
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.1. The petitioner - original plaintiff - appellant landlord is before this Court being aggrieved of a judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 1986, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Zalod dated 18.08.1989, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession was dismissed. The learned Judge was pleased to order that plaintiff to recover @ Rs. 21 per month the rent with effect from 01.06.1983, totaling to Rs. 672/-. It was further ordered that if the defendant had deposited any amount in the Court, the same should be adjusted.2. The plaintiff - landlord being aggrieved of the same, approached the Court of 2nd Extra Assistant, Panchamahals at Godhra by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1989, which too was dismissed by judgment and order dated 31st July 1993 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 3. Mr. Asim J. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Courts below have erred in holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2006)200CTR(Guj)476; [2006]281ITR160(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. These are cross references filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, and the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1983-84 :R.A. No. 470/AM/1992Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 7,64,769 as statutory liability of luxury tax collected by the assessee 2. The assessee-company runs a hotel. For the assessment year 1983-84, the accounting period is the financial year ended on March 31, 1983. It was originally assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 17,36,262. The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated action under Section 263 of the Act, as according to him, an amount of Rs. 7,64,769 being the luxury tax recovered by the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2009]313ITR398(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The appellant Revenue has proposed the following two questions:(1) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that no penalty can be levied when assessed income is loss ignoring the provision of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c)?(2) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that there was no concealment on the part of the respondent?2. Heard Mr. K.M. Parikh, the learned standing counsel for the appellant.3. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated September 5, 2002, the Tribunal has followed the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, i.e., after introduction of Explanation 4 below Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and come to the conclusion that if the finally assessed income is a loss, no penalty is leviable and Explanation 4 does n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Guj)556
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench SA has referred following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda :-Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that initial depreciation allowed in A.Y. 1982-83 on new hotel building is not deductible for arriving at WDV in view of the amendments effected by Finance Act, 1983? 2. The Assessment Year is 1985-86 and the relevant accounting period is calender year ended on 31st December, 1984. While computing depreciation allowance under Section 32 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, decreased the Written Down Value (WDV) of hotel building by deducting initial depreciation, allowed to the assessee in Assessment Year 1982-83. The assessee, being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). 3. By order dated 27/07/1988, the C.I.T. (Appeals) cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)194CTR(Guj)197; [2005]274ITR562(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', Ahmedabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot.'Whether under the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in the absence of any specific time limit prescribed Under Section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for submission of the notice in the prescribed manner to the assessing authority, and in the absence of any express or by clearly implied delegation to the rule making authority of any power to impose any time limit, such time limit prescribed in Rule 17 for submission of Form No. 10 by the rule making authority is invalid and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant trust has complied with all the conditions prescribed in Section 11(2) and is entitled to benefits allowable under the aforesaid provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2004)3GLR2565
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the petitioner under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Surat, on 9th March, 1988 in Revision Application No. 3/1982, by which the learned District Judge has allowed the revision application filed by the present respondents and dismissed the Standard Rent Application No. 1026 of 1976 filed by the present petitioner.2. The petitioner herein moved an application under Section 11 of the Rent Act for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises. At that time, a stand was taken by the respondents herein before the trial Court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, the application for fixation of standard rent is not maintainable.3. The trial Court has negatived the contention of the respondents and came to the conclusion that the Rent Act is applicable and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the pa...
Tag this Judgment!