Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment M.R. Shah 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. Special Civil Application No. 1623 of 2015 : By way of Special Civil Application No.1623 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -assessee M/s.Tata Teleservices has prayed for the following reliefs : ” (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the impugned Summons dated 9/12/2014, impugned Notices dated 18/12/2014 and impugned Letters dated 18/12/2014, 29/12/2014 and 12/1/2015 issued by the respondent No. 2 are barred by limitation and be pleased to strike down the same as being wholly without jurisdiction; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, to call for, examine the records in relation to and quash the impugned Summons dated 9/12.2014, impugned Notices dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner has challenged notice dated 24.02.2015, produced at Annexure 'A' to this petition, issued by the respondent- Assessing Officer, to re-open assessment for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts are as under. For the assessment year 2010-11 the petitioner had filed its return of income on 22.07.2010 declaring loss of Rs.2.69 lacs (rounded off). Such return was accepted without scrutiny. Thus, no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) came to be framed in that case. 3. The Assessing Officer, in order to re-open such assessment, issued the impugned notice dated 24.02.2015 at the request of the petitioner. He also supplied reasons recoded by him for issuing notice. Such reasons read read as under: " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It is seen that the assessee has transferred 5,30,410 shares during year under consideration whose market v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.07.2015 as at Annexure N to the petition in following factual background. 2. The petitioner, on 24.03.2014, was travelling from Morbi to Rajkot carrying cash of Rs. 20,07,000/-. According to him, he had to handover such cash to his friend Manoj P. Rajdev. The vehicle, in which, the petitioner was travelling, was intercepted by the police authorities being the election period for general election to the parliament. The police authorities, after being satisfied that the cash, which the petitioner was carrying, had no connection with the ensuing election, informed the Income Tax Department which, later on 25.03.2014 seized the cash from the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, as reflecting from the present petition is that, the cash belonged to said Shri Manoj P. Rajdev and not to the petitioner. However, since the same was seized from the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. By this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the appellant - revenue has called in question the order dated 22ndOctober, 2002 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 2731/RJT/2000. 2. By an order dated 31st March, 2003, this appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sale of business of firm as a going-concern to the company for a consideration of paid-up share capital does not amount to transfer liable to tax as capital gains?" 3. The assessment year is 1996-97 and the relevant accounting period is the financial year 1995-96. The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of construction work as Builder/Developer/Contractor. The return of income came to be file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. 1. Heard learned advocate for the parties. The appellant, who happened to be the respondent in S.C.A. No.3142 of 2014, has takenout these proceedings of L.P.A., challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 8th September 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute, quashing and setting aside the order of the labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 5th June 2013 in Reference (L.C.B.) No.326 of 2005, which had effect of partly allowing the reference of present appellant and granting her 50% backwages from 24th January 2008 and reinstatement in service. 2. The facts in brief as could be culled-out from the proceedings would indicate that the appellant had been engaged for watering the plants and doing manual job in the office of the respondent “ employer in the year 1978 and she was continued as such till 11th February 1986. Thereafter, without following due procedure of law, her se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, J. 1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may refer to the facts arising in SCA No. 17307 of 2015. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the petitioner filed return of income on 17.10.2011 declaring nil income. Such return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) and thus accepted without any scrutiny. The Assessing Officer later on issued impugned notice dated 02.03.2015 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the said Assessment Year 2011-12. He supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded for issuing such notice, which read as under: ” "In this case, on verification of records, it is found that the Assessee is a Private Ltd. Company engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. On the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioners. 2. Notice returnable on 8th January, 2016. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel has contended that by virtue of provisions of section 97(1)(B), the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is hopelessly time barred. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 17/12/2015 in L.P.A. No. 1459 of 2015 to contend that since 2006, nobody has raised any objection regarding the membership of the petitioners and has urged that the adinterim relief, as prayed for, in para 6(B) may be granted. 4. Having heard Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and having perused the accompaniment of the petition, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the interest of the petitioners so far as their rights to exercise their franchise in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order [1] Notice be issued to opponents, making it returnable on 08th January, 2016. Mr.Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice on behalf of opponents Nos.1 to 3. Direct Service for opponent No.4 is permitted. [2] The petitioners have preferred Special Civil Application No.19715 of 2015 for writ or prohibition or writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent-State Authorities from nominating any Director/appointing any Director in the Board of Directors of Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter refereed to as "the bank" for short). In the said petition, an interim relief is prayed to restrained the State Authorities from nominating any Director/appointing any Director in the Board of Directors and also to restrain such nominee from casting his vote at the election of the office bearers of the bank. [3] The present Civil Application is preferred for following reliefs: "13(A) Pending hearing and final dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order: 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-184 of 2015 registered with Bhavnagar 'A' Division Police Station, District-Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Thu Dec 24 00:16:17 IST 2015 R/CR.MA/23842/2015 ORDER applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Order: Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. J.K.Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 58594/14, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, arising from C.R No. I-151 of 2014 registered with the Umra Police Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II, read with Section 114 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:- 2. The applicant before me is a structural Engineer who had designed the building, which is said to have collapsed. A building in the name of "Kanaiya Palace", situated at Ghoddod Road, Surat was constructed in the year 1998, to be precise, the construction had commenced in the year 1994 and the same was completed in the y...
Tag this Judgment!