Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(Guj)568; [2009]310ITR227(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' Ahmedabad, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court, for the assessment year 1987-88:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drafts of Rs. 1,67,261/- being cash credits in the books of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation in the account of the assessee was the income of the assessee when there are no corresponding entries in the books of the assessee?2. If the reply to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the deduction of the said amount as the cost of purchase or as allowable expenditure?2. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference are that during the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1987-88, the Assessing Officer called for the copy of account of the assessee as appearing in the books of Guj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)225CTR(Guj)313; [2009]316ITR104(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. The Revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1986-87 proposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law.(A) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that change in the method of accounting from mercantile to cash basis was bonafide and thereby deleting the addition made on account of interest chargeable ?(B) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted ?2. This Court has admitted Appeal on 6.9.2000 on the following substantial question of law.Whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the change in the method of accounting made by the present assessee, a subsidiary of the holding company with whom deposits were placed, from mercantile to cash basis was bona fide and deletion of the addition made on ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)218CTR(Guj)541; [2008]307ITR1(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. All these petitions have been heard together as it is an accepted position that the issue involved is common. Special Civil Application No. 6215 of 1999 has been taken as the lead matter and accordingly detailed facts are taken from the said petition.2. The petitioner was a Firm comprised of four partners. The Firm continued business up to 31.03.1992 i.e. the day on which the Firm was dissolved. In the subsequent period, viz. previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1993-94 certain transactions were carried out and hence, a return of income in the status of Association of Persons (AOP) declaring income of Rs. 5,05,087/- came to be filed.3. On 24.11.1995 search proceedings Under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were carried out at the residential premises of three erstwhile partners of the petitioner Firm. Certain loose papers were found from the residence of one of the partners Mr. T.V. Sujan. The said documents were seized and statement of Mr. Sujan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2009Guj16; (2009)1GLR270
M.R. Shah, J.1. Present Appeal from Order is filed by the appellants - original defendant Nos. 2 and defendant Nos. 5 to 7 of Special Civil Suit No. 04 of 2002 challenging the order and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa dated 20th July, 2007 below Exhibit Nos. 623, 637, 626, 638, 645 and 635 in Special Civil Suit No. 04 of 2002.2. Mr. H.M.Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein and defendant Nos. 14 and 15 has raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. As preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of present Appeal from Order is raised, this Court proposes to consider the same first. 3. Few facts are necessary for the purpose of determination of maintainability of present Appeal from Order against impugned judgement, order and decree passed by the learned trial Court:Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 herein - original plaintiffs in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR471
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the appellants original-claimants and learned Advocate Mr. H. M. Thakker for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company.2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Shardaben Shambhuram Devmurari, original claimant for enhacement of award while challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli in M.A.C.P. No. 133 of 2004 dated 4th March, 2008 wherein the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Modi for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was filed by claimant for Rs. 3,00,000/- under different head, but Claims Tribunal has calculated amount of compensation which comes to Rs. 3,63,000/- but that was not awarded because the claimant has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- only, therefore, same amount was awarded though Claims Tribunal calculated amount of Rs. 3,63,000/- for the claimants which amounts to basic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR33
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Bench:In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Ors. v. Amjad Ali and Ors. : 1999CriLJ5060 , when a person is ordered to pay maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order, whether the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is empowered to sentence such person to imprisonment for a term exceeding one month.2. Factual background leading to the question is as follows:Special Criminal Application No. 897 of 2008 has been filed by one Rama Muru Pariya, through Jail against the judgment and order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhalia, Dist: Jamnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 141 of 2007. By the said decision, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Guj)580; [2009]308ITR263(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J.1. These tax appeals were originally heard and decided vide judgment rendered on 25-4-2001. In the same judgment, Civil Application Nos. 53 and 54 of 2001 moved by Revenue were rejected summarily. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before Supreme Court of India and appeals against the judgment rendered in both the tax appeals and order made in both the Civil Applications were admitted by Supreme Court. Vide judgment rendered on 8-2-2008, Apex Court dismissed Civil Appeals of Revenue against judgment rendered in the two tax appeals. However, in relation to the two Civil Applications and the order made therein, this is what has been observed by the Apex Court:Apart from the above question under Section 36(1)(iii), the present civil appeals are filed by the Department against the decision of the High Court whereby the High Court has dismissed Civil Applications Nos. 53 and 54 of 2001 filed by the Department. It may be noted that during the pendency of Tax Appeals Nos. 449 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas189(Guj); [2010]98SCL163(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J.1. These are the petitions filed by the petitioner-companies for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation of the three transferor companies, viz., Sumilon Plastic P. Ltd., Sumilon Tex P. Ltd. and Shree Kapil Yarn Ltd., with Sumilon Industries Ltd., the transferee company under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.Vide the respective orders dated April 1, 2008, passed in Company Applications Nos. 237 and 238 of 2008, meetings of the equity shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors were dispensed with in case of two transferor companies in view of the written consent letters placed on record. Similarly, vide said order passed in Company Application No. 239 of 2008, the meetings of the equity shareholders and unsecured creditors were dispensed with in view of the written consent letters placed on record.2. There were no secured creditors of the said transferor company on the date of filing the application. Similarly, vide said order passed for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR498
J.R. Vora, J.1. Both the above matters have arisen from the same Judgment and Order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, on 15.12.2007, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2007. Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2008 Hiteshkumar Madhusudan Adhvaryu was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and vide the impugned judgment and order, the accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge awarded death penalty to the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while he was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR14
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the High Court order dated 27-4-2005 and the Government notification dated 16-8-2005 compulsorily retiring the petitioner, a Judicial Officer holding the post of Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, from service after a disciplinary inquiry.2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under:2.1. The petitioner who was born on 7-5-1955, joined judicial service on 9-11-1981. After his appointment to the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C, the petitioner was posted at Navsari, and was thereafter, transferred to different places, such as Pardi, Valsad, Devdhar, Bharuch, Savli, Visnagar and Baroda. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Civil Judge (S.D.) on 10-6-1996 and was posted at Amreli.2.2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 16-12-1997 (which order was implemented on 17-12-1997) in view of the contemplated ...
Tag this Judgment!