Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part-I [Citations 1-100]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1 to 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1001. Income Tax Act | Section 119(2)(B) Application Cannot Be Rejected Citing Vague & Arbitrary ReasonsCase Title: M/S AMIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 1In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has emphasized that applications under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must not be dismissed arbitrarily, especially when citing the absence of genuine hardship to the petitioner.The court stated that rejection on merits is unwarranted if the delay in filing the income tax return is not condoned.The ruling came in response to a petition challenging the order dated 04.10.2023, wherein the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax rejected an application seeking permission for condonation of delay and the filing of an income tax return for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. The due date for the return, which expired on 31.05.2021, saw a delay of 26 days, with the application under Section 119(2)(b) filed on 26.06.2021.2. Income Tax Act | Gujarat High Court Invalidates Income Tax Assessment Order Due To Violations Of Section 144BCase Title: DHVANIL HEMENDRA RESHAMWALA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1)LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 2In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has invalidated an Income Tax Assessment Order, citing violations of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.The petitioner, an individual assessee, primarily sought the following reliefs:(A) Petitioning for the issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order to annul and set aside the contested Assessment order under Section 147 in conjunction with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the Demand Notice under Section 156 dated 30/03/2022.3. S. 80IA(4) Deduction Available To Assessee Engaged In Developing Infrastructure Projects Like Roads, Canals: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Versus Montecarlo Construction Ltd.LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 3The Gujarat High Court has allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act to the assessed engaged in developing infrastructure projects like roads, canals, etc.The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Niral R. Mehta has observed that the assessed has entered into a development of infrastructure facility agreement and not a work contract.The respondent or assessee was engaged in the business of construction activity and the development of infrastructure and other projects, i.e., irrigation canals and road construction.4. SARFAESI Act | Charge Of Secured Creditor Will Precede Over The Charge Based On Dues Of Sales Tax: Gujarat High CourtCase Title: Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya vs State of GujaratLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 4The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede over the charge of an Unsecured Creditor.The above ruling came in a writ petition whereby the core issue raised was - 'Who will have the first charge over the property in question i.e. Secured Creditor or the State / Central Government (Crowns debt) on account of non-payment of dues of the Sales Tax department?'5. 1990 Custodial Death Case | Gujarat HC Dismisses Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt's Appeal Challenging Conviction & Life TermCase Title: PRAVINSINH BAVUBHA ZALA Versus STATE OF GUJARATLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 5The Gujarat High Court today dismissed an appeal filed by Sanjiv Bhatt, a former Indian Police Service officer, challenging his conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Jamnagar Court in connection with an alleged case of custodial torture and death dating back to 1990.The incident relates to the death of one Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani in November 1990, which was allegedly due to custodial torture. At the time, Bhatt was the Assistant Superintendent of Police Jamnagar, who, along with other officers, took into custody about 133 persons, including Vaishnani, for rioting during a Bharat Bandh.6. 'You Deserve This': Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹7 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Not Actively Pursuing PIL For 7 YrsLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 6The Gujarat High Court has levied a fine of ₹7 lakh on a litigant who failed to actively pursue his public interest litigation (PIL) for seven years.Dismissing the PIL with costs, the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee sternly stated, “When you are filing a PIL, have some kind of responsibility, and accountability. It is not that you file a PIL and then you start dealing with the people. And if you succeed then withdraw it. If you don't succeed, then you pursue it. Don't make it as a tool for your own personal issues.”7. 'Consciously Decided To Follow Spiritual Path': Gujarat HC Dismisses Plea By Father Against Swami Nithyananda For Alleged Unlawful Confinement Of DaughtersLL Citation: ...

Gujarat High Court Annual Digest 2024: Part-I [Citations 1-100]

Lovina B Thakkar

Tags