Court : Gujarat
Common Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant, the Regional Director-Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity) has filed the present appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act' for short) against the order dated 27.07.2001 rendered by ESI Court, Bhavnagar, in ESI Application No.(22/1993old) (40/1996new). (hereinafter referred to as ESI Application No.40 of 1996). 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mayur S. Barot for the appellant. Though served, respondent has not filed appearance. Matter is adjourned from time to time. However, the appeal is of the year 2002 and therefore, the same is taken up for final hearing in absence of the respondent. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Barot appearing for the appellant mainly submitted that the present respondent unit was working as one of the units of National Dairy Development Board and was carrying on manufacturing activity in connecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. Since the controversy involved in all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is common and the parties are also common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The assessment years are 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 respectively. For assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2009. In relation to assessment year 2010-2011, the return of income came to be filed on 04.10.2010 and in relation to assessment year 2011-2012, the return of income came to be filed on 29.09.2011. All the returns came to be processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Subsequently, by the impugned notices dated 26.03.2014, the assessment in relation to each of the above assessment years is sought to be reopened by the Assessing Officer. In response to the notices issued under section 148 of the Act, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has challenged the order dated 19.3.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No.2449/Ahd/2011 by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law : ” "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made in respect of undisclosed stock of Rs. 32,42,815/- ?" 2. The assessment year is 2005-06 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2004-05. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for assessment year 2005-06 and framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 7.12.2010 making an addition on account of difference in value of closing stock as submitted befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. The appellant - assessee in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") has challenged the order dated 7th July, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' in ITA No.4510/Ahd/1996. By an order dated 1st November, 2004, this appeal had been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 3,51,308/- received by the appellant in accordance with the High Court Judgment, was income liable to tax under section 17(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961?" 2. The assessment year is 1994-95 and the relevant accounting period is the year that ended on 31st March, 1994. The assessee, who is assessed in the status of an individual, filed return of income on 30th June, 2004 showing total income of Rs. 1,32,430/-. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act granting re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 30.03.2015 passed below Exhibit:6 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.124 of 2014, by which, the learned Judge was pleased to grant interim maintenance in favour of the stepdaughter for an amount of Rs.3,000/to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, who is the grandfather of the stepdaughter of the petitioner. 2. An interesting question of law arises in this petition. Whether a minor stepdaughter is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code') from her stepmother on the demise of the natural father of the stepdaughter. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition may be summarized as under: 3.1. The son of the respondent No.2 herein, namely, Prakashkumar Sarvaiya married with one As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment Harsha Devani, J. 1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and the urgency of the matter as discussed hereinafter, the court has heard the matter finally. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs : [13] The petitioner, therefore, prays :- [a] that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing that the respondent hence forth, make any alternations in Forms and Utilities or changes in tax compliance requirements, applicable from the A.Y. subsequent to the A.Y. in which such alterations are introduced. [b] that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding the impugned announcement dated 9/9/2015 as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. Leave to delete respondents No. 5 to 7. 2. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and considering the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter, the matter was taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this judgment. 3. By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of the impugned communication order dated 2.7.2015 (Annexure-P to the petition) whereby the petitioner has been informed that its application for stay of demand is rejected and it is directed to pay the entire outstanding demand of Rs.1,92,73,490/- in twelve equal monthly instalments of Rs.16 lakh each. 4. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner is an urban development authority discharging duties under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. In relation to assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel, waives service of notice of rule for the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case and considering the view that the court is inclined to take in the matter, the matter was taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this judgment. 2. The petitioner is an urban development authority performing functions under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder. By an order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Surat the petitioner was granted registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act with effect from 1.4.2002. Subsequently, for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the matters were taken up for scrutiny and assessment orders came to be passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") computing the income of the petitioner as 'Nil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Harsha Devani, J. 1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant - revenue has challenged the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B" in ITA No.2125/Ahd/2011 by proposing the following two questions, stated to be substantial questions of law : "[1] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.8,33,252/- made on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)((iii) of the Act? [2] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.55,94,825/- made on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act ?" 2. The assessment year is 2008-09 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2007-08. The assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2008 declaring total income of Rs.80,79,294/-. The cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, serving as the Gallery Attendant, Class IV, has prayed for the following reliefs: 7(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in form of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith consider services of the petitioner to have been regularized with effect form 25.07.2002 and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay to the petitioner benefits that are due pursuant to such regularization of the petitioner's services from 25.07.2002 in light of judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 22/08/2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No.635 of 2013; (B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to award interest at the rate of 12% on the amount that has remained unpaid on salary and other benefits that ought to have been paid to the petitioner as a full time Gallery Attendant, Class-IV of Bhuj Museum with effect from 25.07.2002. (C) T...
Tag this Judgment!