Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
1. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- Issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the District Development Officer, Banaskantha. 3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by order dated 02.03.2015, whereby the petitioner is declared disqualified, after having been elected to the post of Sarpanch. 4. The said order dated 02.03.2015 is passed in light of the provision under Sections 30(1)(m) read with 32(2) of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order is unjust, improper and arbitrary. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the time when the election was notified and at the time when the petitioner got elected to the post of Sarpanch, the petitioner did not have more than two children...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of a show-cause notice issued by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mundra, Kachchh, dated 5 th February 2015, in exercise of his powers under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Kachchh, Banaskantha, Patan, Rajkot, Morbi and Surendranagar for a period of two years. On 3rd February 2015, the following order was passed by this Court : "By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus on the respondents and seeks quashing of the notice dated 24.12.2014, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mundra, Kutch. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 29.1.2015, I was surprised to find that the impugned notice is the one informing the petitioner to appear before the Authority on 19.1.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
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!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at the Umra Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-20 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief may be summarized as under : The applicant no.1 Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and others viz., Harivadan Shantilal, Laljibhai Arjanbhai, Shardaben Laljibhai, Haresh Laljibhai, Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai and Chhaganbhai Shantilal executed an agreement for Sale/Contract dated 7th July 2003 in favour of Ravjibhai Premjibhai, Veljibhai Mohanbhai, Nanubhai Premjibhai and Devrajbhai Mohanbhai for the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 9 paiki (new Revenue Survey No.6, T.P. Scheme No.1 (Vesu), F.P. No.17, admeasuring 7268 sq.mtrs. and 6562 sq.mtrs.) against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First Information Report registered at the Umra Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-20 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 416, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief may be summarized as under : The applicant no.1 Arvindbhai Shantilal Modi and others viz., Harivadan Shantilal, Laljibhai Arjanbhai, Shardaben Laljibhai, Haresh Laljibhai, Jayantibhai Ranchhodbhai and Chhaganbhai Shantilal executed an agreement for Sale/Contract dated 7th July 2003 in favour of Ravjibhai Premjibhai, Veljibhai Mohanbhai, Nanubhai Premjibhai and Devrajbhai Mohanbhai for the land bearing old Revenue Survey No. 9 paiki (new Revenue Survey No.6, T.P. Scheme No.1 (Vesu), F.P. No.17, admeasuring 7268 sq.mtrs. and 6562 sq.mtrs.) against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeals assailing the following ordersTax Appeal No.Date of Tribunal's orderITA No.Assessment Year419/200711/08/06129/Ahd/20021990-91 to 26.11.19991393/200730.11.2005157/Ahd/20031991-92 to 22.11.20001394/200730.11.2005158/Ahd/20031991-92 to 22.11.20001431/200702/12/05339/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001432/200702/12/05338/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001433/200702/12/05337/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001434/200702/12/05336/Ahd/20031991-92 to 17.08.20001435/200702/12/0572/Ahd/20031990-91 to 1999-2000440/200829.06.2007191/Ahd/200401.04.1990 to 25.07.20001351/200701/12/05228/Ahd/20031990-91 to 12.01.20011.1 These appeals were admitted by this Court for consideration of the following substantial question of law: TAX APPEAL NO. 1351 OF 2007 "Whether, on the facts and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this reference, the Tribunal as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.1996 in Civil Appeal No.10652 of 1996, arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12022 of 1991 moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot has directed the Tribunal to raise and refer the following question said to be questions of law to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for its esteemed opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. (2) Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'Notification No.SRO/992 dated 22.12.1950 of the old Act, 1922 was not withdrawn and, therefore, it provided a good basis to the Co-operative Society to seek exemption of its income from business." 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the assessee is a cooperative society and was assessed by the Income-tax Officer in the status of A.O.P. The as...
Tag this Judgment!