Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2003]261ITR113(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. This group of 32 matters has been arguedtogether having regard to the nature of controversy and the common questions of law involved, which are as under :I. Questions of law involved in these appeals :In Tax Appeal No. 273 of 2002 :(1) Whether the usance interest paid by the assessee apart from the purchase price of the ship would fall within the scope of the definition of the term 'interest' under Section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source from usance interest paid to a non-resident under Section 195(1) of the Act ? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that usance interest partakes of the character of purchase price and therefore not liable to deduction at source under Section 195(1) of the Act ? (4) Whether the Appellate Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 181(2003)CLT134
R.K. Abichandani, J.1. This group of 32 matters has been argued together having regard to the nature of controversy and the common questions of law involved, which are as under:I. Questions of law involved in these appeals : In Tax Appeal No. 273 of 2002'(1) Whether the usance interest paid by the assessee apart from the purchase price of the ship would fall within the scope of definition of term 'interest' under Section 2(28A) of the IT Act, 1961?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source from a usance interest paid to a non-resident under Section 195(1) of the Act ?(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that usance interest partakes the character of purchase price and, therefore, not liable to deduction at source under Section 195(1) of the Act ?(4) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in allowing the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Guj)134
R.K. Abichandani, J.This group of 32 matters has been argued together having regard to the nature of controversy and the common questions of law involved, which are as under:I. Questions of law involved in these appeals :In Tax Appeal No. 273 of 2002'(1) Whether the usance interest paid by the assessee apart from the purchase price of the ship would fall within the scope of definition of term 'interest' under section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source from a usance interest paid to a non-resident under section 195(1) of the Act ?(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that usance interest partakes the character of purchase price and, therefore, not liable to deduction at source under section 195(1) of the Act ?(4) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in allowing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2003Guj164; (2002)3GLR379
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. What is challenged in this Appeal From Order filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short) is the order dated May 5, 2001 recorded below application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 350 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)., Surat by which application Exh. 5 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code by appellant against respondents restraining them from committing breach of the terms and conditions of the tender and consequential right existing in favour of the appellant and further to restrain the respondents from assigning to anyone the construction work of Common Effluent Treatment Plant ('C.E.T.P.' for short) of Sachin Infa-Enviro Limited, respondent No. 1, till disposal of the suit, came to be rejected, and thereby, the interim injunction granted earlier has been vacated.2. Appellant is the original plaintiff whereas respondents are the original defendants and for the sake of convenience and brevity, they shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)4GLR2840
B.C. Patel, J.1. In view of the order made on 10th October, 2000, by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the matter has been placed before this Bench.2. The petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of petitioner no.1, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. They have filed this petition inter alia praying that the Town Planning Scheme Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation), Annexure-B, the provisions contained in section-18(j) of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955 (hereinafter to as the old Town Planning Act), the General Development Control Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the Development or Control Regulation), Annexure-D, and section-12(m) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Development Act) be declared as ultra vires to Articles-14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void and inoperative. The petitioners have further praye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)3GLR727
B.C. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner, Consumer Protection Council, which is registered under the provisions of the Societies Act 1860 and under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 has moved this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through its Chairman, who is a Chartered Accountant for claiming several reliefs.1.1 The respondent No. 1, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (AMC, for brevity, hereinafter) is a Local Authority functioning under the provisions contained in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the BPMC Act). Respondent No. 2 is Town Development Officer of the Western Zone of AMC. The petitioner has joined the State of Gujarat through its Secretary, Urban Development, Gandhinagar. The petitioner has moved this Court seeking appropriate writ commanding the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to enforce the building byelaws, Town Planning Scheme Regulations and the regulations enforcing the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR964
ORDER: Delay condoned. Heard. The special leave petitions are dismissed.' (v) Special Civil Application No. 7372 of 1999 was then filed by Halar Utkarsha Samiti against B.O.R.L. by way of Public Interest Litigation challenging the action/proposed action on the part of the respondents allowing setting up a huge pipeline through the declared Marine Sanctuary and a mandamus was sought for setting aside the decision which was about to be taken by the respondent No. 1 to permit B.O.R.L. to lay the pipeline as per the modified Route 2A passing through the reserved forest and Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Kachchh. This Special Civil Application was decided by the Division Bench (Coram: R. K. Abichandani & D. H. Waghela, JJ.) on 10th December, 1999 (page Nos. 48 to 61 of the paper as Annexure-A4 in Special Civil Application No. 1778 of 2000). Paras14. 15, 17 and 19 of this judgment arc reproduced as under : '14. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there will not be any scop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2000]245ITR445(Guj)
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal's order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal. At the instance of the Revenue : Asst. yr. 1972-73 Ref. Appln. No. 970/Ahd/1981 (1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73 under s. 147(b) was not legal ?' At the instance of the Assessee : Asst. yr. 1973-74 Ref. Appln. No. 961/Ahd/1981 : (1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the ITO was justified in reopening the assessment on the basis of the information received fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj139; (2000)1GLR920
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. What is in 'focus :-The main question, in the focus, which, revolves, round, for determination and decision, in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), is, 'Whether, an appeal would lie under Clause 15, of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Bombay High Court, applicable to the Gujarat High Court, to a Division Bench of this Court, from the judgment of a Single Judge, of this Court, recorded and rendered in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction arising out of 'Appeals from Orders' involv-ing and warranting analysis, interpretation of, and applicability of the provisions' : (i) Clauses 15 and 44 of LPA of Bombay Applicable to Gujarat (ii) Sections 100-A 102(2), Section 104(1) & (2) 105,106 107 and 109 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and (iii) Order 43, Rule 1 (r) and Order 45, Rule 3 of the CPC and (iv) Article 133(1) and (2) and Article 134-A and Article 147 of the Constitution of India. 2. The appeal, before the learned Single Judge, came to be filed, against the Interlocutory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)2GLR269
1. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad has in this group of petitions sought a declaration that the requirements denoted by the word 'successfully' and by the words 'and so long as it functions successfully' in Rule 6 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1976 are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 7 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 and therefore inoperative and void. The petitioner Corporation has challenged the order dated 31st December, 1985 passed by the appellate authority and the revised assessment order dated 9th January, 1985 which was consequentially made.2. According to the petitioner, the polluting parameters as mentioned in the conditions imposed under the consent granted to the petitioner under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the maximum permissible limits of ranges allowed as per the consent condition were as under:(1) B.O.D. 20 mg./l.(2) Suspended...
Tag this Judgment!