Court : Gujarat
K.J. Thaker, J. 1. The Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.1892/Ahd/2001. 2. The Tax Appeal No.677 of 2001 u/s.260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA No.88/Ahd/2001. 3. The facts of both the appeals are identical Therefore, both these appeals are taken up for hearing and decided together as common questions of law are raised. The respondent though served, has chosen not to appear. 4. As the question of law as well as the facts of both these appeals are same, we discuss facts as emerging in Tax Appeal No.676 of 2006. The assessee filed its return on 31.07.1998, declaring total income of Rs.54,15,971/- for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The assessments were taken under scrutiny and the Assessment Officer vide its order, determined the total income of ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order of respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Income Tax-I at Annexure-L rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short)on the ground that the petitioner had not made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the revision application; and has also prayed to quash the order levying penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act at Annexure A, dated 12.3.2010, and has sought further direction against respondent No.1 to refund the penalty amount of Rs.1,13,32,499.00 with interest. 2. As per the facts stated in the petition, the petitioner filed his return of income declaring loss of Rs.4,63,776.00 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'Code') filed below Exh.106 in Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 by the petitioners - original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') for amendment of their plaint. 2. With a view to properly understand and appreciate controversy involved in this petition, case set-up by the parties, out of which this petition has arisen and on which, learned Senior Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, needs to be briefly noted. The facts are as under:- 2.1. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2008 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur against the respondent - defendant in the month of April, 2008 for specific performance of Agreement to Sale dated 09.04.2007 executed by the respondent - de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojiya waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. J. T. Trivedi for the appellant and learned senior counsel Mr. S. R. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Dilip L. Kanojia for all the respondents. 2. Pursuant to order dated 29.11.2013, parties have produced compilation of relevant papers and made submissions for final disposal of the appeal. 3. The appellant is original plaintiff; whereas respondents are original defendants before the Civil Court at Valsad, camp @ Vapi in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2011. In such suit, plaintiff has prayed for specific performance to agreement to sell dated 10.01.1981 and possession receipt dated 25.12.1982 with alternative relief of declaration that because of suit property is in possession of the plaintiff since the year 1981 - 1982 it amounts to an adverse possession for more than 30 years with a permanent injunction as restraining the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. Rule. Mr.Nikunt K.Raval, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Mehul S.Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided, finally. 2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 30.11.2013, passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge (adhoc), Rajkot ("the Appellate Court", below the applications at Exs.5 and 27, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2011, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot ("the Trial Court") below the applications at Exs.5 and 27, in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 1999, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as presented in the petition, are that l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged a Notification dated 4th February, 2012 at Annexure "J" to the petition, as being unconstitutional. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to grant appointments to the petitioners on priority basis to the post of Livestock Inspectors. 2. The brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The State Government, in order to meet with the requirement of trained Livestock Inspectors at distant and far away places, which task would not be possible to be performed only with the aid of the veterinary doctors, has created the cadre of Livestock Inspectors in the Department of Animal Husbandry. These Livestock Inspectors, as is apparent from the Government of Gujarat's Notification dated 27th February, 2001, were allowed to attend to the livestocks under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, as long as they are in the Government service. 2.2 In exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
[1] This case reminds me of MuhammadBinTughlaq (13231327 A.D.) who was Sultan of Delhi. It is true that success is not an outcome of knowledge alone. In spite of being a learned person, a scholar and a man of vision and innovations, he earned the epithet of "PAGLA TUGHLAQ" on account of his impulsive behaviour and hasty moves, which failed and added to the miseries of his courtiers and the common people, causing them great hardships and sufferings. Shifting of his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad was a great failure in his era. Prior to independence of India, most of such "KingdomsRajvadas" merged and democracy prevailed in India and in turn, Constitution of India was formed. It was thought that "achhe din a gaye" but the ground reality is altogether different. This case is a classic example of misuse of power, carelessness and negligent attitude of high ranking Government officials of GIDC, who have no heart and regards towards truth but act as per their whims and fancies. [1.1] Heard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. These petitions are filed by three different companies. They are the licensees authorised to provide telecommunication services to their customers under the provisions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 ('TRAI Act' for short). 2. The customer application form/subscriber's application form/customer enrollment form provided by the petitioners with terms and condition attached to the form or given separately filled in by the intending customer and accepted by the petitioners to provide telecommunication services is considered as 'instrument' chargeable with duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) by the respondents and the petitioners have been subjected to payment of stamp duty on subscribers base for different periods under the orders and the demand notices impugned in these petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The challenge made to the orders and to the demand notices is mainly on two grounds; one is that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, CJ. 1. By filing this Special Civil Application, the employees of Limbdi Nagarpalika, Limbdi, Dist. Surendranagar has prayed for the following reliefs. "7(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.6.2013 which is at Annexure-A to this petition and all consequential orders and further be pleased to restore to the employees of the Limbdi Nagar Palika the salary in the pay scale recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission. 1.1 Subsequently, by filing a draft amendment, the petitioners have made the following further prayers. "7(BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare circular No. PGR/122009/1127/R dated 16.09.2010 and No. PGR/1098/83/R dated 2.6.1998 which are at Annexure:-W collectively, ultra vires the mandate of part 9 and Part 9A of the Constitution of India, so also ultra vires the mandate of Article 14 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. This application is at the instance of the original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.16647/2005 for review of our order dated 3/7/2013, by which we rejected the Special Civil Application no.16647/2005 and other allied writ- petitions. 2. Controversy in the main writ-petition : The main writ-application and the other allied petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2013. 2.1 The applicants herein had challenged the recruitment to the post of "Vidya Sahayaks" which were filled-in pursuant to the advertisement published by the opponents dated 20/7/2004, mainly on the ground that at the time of making the said recruitment, the State authorities failed to provide for full 15% reservation for the members of the Scheduled Tribes. The recruitment was at the instance of the Dahod District Panchayat and Bhavnagar District Panchayat. 2.2 The applicants had applied for being appointed as "Vidya Sahayaks" pursu...
Tag this Judgment!