Gujarat Court October 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pitamberdas Bhikhabhai and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-31-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR341(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1992, at the instance of Messrs. Pitamberdas Bhikhabhai & Co., applicants in R.A. No. 1154 of 1960-61 and Shri Pitamberdas Bhikhabhai, applicant in R.A. No. 1155 of I960-61. At the request of the aforesaid assessees, these two reference have been consolidated. These two references year 1958-59, the accounting year being Samvat year 2013, corresponding to the period 3rd November, 1956, to 23rd October, 1957. 2. One Bhikhabhai Gokaldas was the head male member and karta of a joint and undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and his three sons Pitamberdas, Amritlal and Jekisandas. The joint family carried on business in kirana, tea and grains. On 16th November, I939, Pitamberdas and Amritlal separated from the joint family and on separation, became entitled to the entire business owned by the joint family as aforesaid, subject to the liabilities of that business. Thereafter, Pitamberdas and Amri...
J.R. Patel and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR717(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case is J. R. Patel & Sons Private Limited, the assessment year being 1957-58, the accounting year being the calendar year 1956. The assessee company was acting as the managing agent of the Mahendra Mills Ltd. with effect from 20th August, 1945, the period of managing agency being twenty years. Under the terms of the agreement the assessee company was entitled to an office allowance of Rs. 1,000 per month and to a commission calculated at the rate of ten per cent. on the annual net profits of the managed company. A. J. Patel was the managing director of the assessee company. He was also a director of the managed company. He was employed by the managed company to render technical service to the managed company and the managed company used to pay to him a sum of Rs. 2,500 per month. He was also acting as the selling agent of the managed company and the managed company was ...
Sunilchand C. Mazumdar Vs. the Aryodaya Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)GLR795
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, granting an interim injunction against the appellant restraining him from serving or engaging himself directly or indirectly for or under any other person, firm or company in India as a senior assistant in the spinning department or in any other similar capacity and from divulging any of the secrets, process or information received by him in respect of his employment till the hearing and final disposal of the suit. 2. The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff-company is a joint stock company and is running a textile mill in Ahmedabad. By an agreement dated March 22, 1961, made between the plaintiff-company and the defendant, it was agreed that the defendant, who is a qualified technician and a diploma holder in textile technology, should serve the company for a period of five years commencing from May 1, 1961, on the terms and conditions contained therein. The defendant worked i...
Kanubhai Prabhudas and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR733
V.B. Raju, J.1. The two petitioners in this criminal revision application were convicted under Section12 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The prosecution case was that on 17-10-61 at about 8-30 P.M. one of them gave a two rupee note to the other and gave a bet of American Futures on the figure of 8. The prosecution led the evidence of the P.S.I. and a Panch witness but they did not produce any slip. A two rupee note however was found with one of the applicants. It was not a marked currency note as according to the prosecution one of the accused gave a bet to another accused. The P.S.I. deposed that he heard one of the accused utter the words Bombay 8 when he gave the two rupee note to the other accused. He was supported by the Panch. The evidence of these two witnesses was accepted and the two applicants were convicted under Section 12(a) of the Gambling Act.In revision it is contended: (1) that there is no corroboration to the evidence of the P.S.I. and the evidence of the Pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Jagdish Mills Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)0GLR652; [1964]51ITR266(Guj)
Desai, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee in this case was non-resident company running a textile mill in the then Baroda State during the relevant accounting year 1944. The assessment year in question is the year 1945-46. The assessee submitted its return of income and on 24th March, 1960, was assessed to tax. The assessee company had sold certain goods to the Textile Commissioner, Bombay, and had also sold certain goods to Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. The payments in respect of these goods had been made by cheques drawn on banks in British India. The Income-tax Officer took the view that as these payments were made in British India, they attracted the incidence of tax having regard to the provisions contained in section 4 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, preferred an appeal therefrom to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The principal grounds urged by...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Vs. Raipur Manufacturing Company L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)0GLR741
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, raises some interesting and important questions relating to the construction of section 2(m) and section 7of the Wealth-tax Act which have been argued with considerable vigour and ability by both the sides. One of the noteworthy features of this case is that some cases have been relied upon by both the sides in order to deduce contrary conclusions. The Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited is the assessee in this case. The assessment year in question is the year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being the 31st December, 1956. On 11th May, 1956, a demand notice had been issued on the assessee under the section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for advance payment of tax requiring the company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,59,549 in four instalments being payable of the 15th June, 1956, the 15th September, 1956, the 15the December, 1956, and the 15th March, 1957. Prior to the valuation date, the assessee pa...
Lalji Kanji Vs. V.T. Shah, Dy. Commissioner of Police
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR668
B.J. Divan, J.1. These three Special Criminal Applications arise out of the externment proceedings taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City against three different individuals. In Special Criminal Application No. 755/1962 the petitioner is Lalji Kanji who is also referred to as Lalji Kanji Hajam in Special Criminal Application No. 791/1962 the petitioner is Ambalal Vadilal Soni and in Special Criminal Application No. 794/1962 the petitioner is Sartan Khengar Rabari. It has been alleged against each of these three individuals that along with the other two each of the petitioners in these different proceedings have been harassing people and since all the allegations made in the notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act against all these three individuals are more or less in the same terms and since the orders of externment passed against these three individual are also in the same terms we propose to consider these three petitions together and also to consider the...
The Rajkot Borough Municipality Vs. Bhavan Khengar Chotlia and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)4GLR997
V.B. Raju, J.1. A complaint filed by the Rajkot Borough Municipality was dismissed on the ground that process fee had not been paid. The contention of the Municipality that no process fee was required on a complaint filed by the Municipality was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge who relied on Note (2) to Para 1 of Chapter II of the Criminal Manual of the High Court Of Bombay 1960 and the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows:This contention cannot be accepted as correct in view of Note (2) to para 1 of Chapter II of the Criminal Manual of the High Court of Bombay. 1960. It is prescribed therein that process fees are leviable from Municipalities in respect of summonses and warrants issued in cases falling under Section 200(2) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925Section 32 of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 reads as follows:The High Court shall make rules as to the following matters:(i) the fees chargeable for serving and executing process issued by such Court in its appell...
Jadeja Kiratsinhji Anandsinhji Vs. Patel Kana Vela
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Guj122; (1964)0GLR515
V.B. Raju, J.1. The petitioner's application under Section 4 of the S. A. D. R. Act was dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge, at Morvi, in appeal from the award on the ground that thedebt sought to be adjusted was barred by limitation.2. In revision, this order is challenged, and it is contended that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the S. A. D. R. Act, that the Limitation Act merely applies to proceedings in a Civil Court, and even then it does notextinguish the debt but merely bars the remedy. This contention is, no doubt, correct, but under the S. A. D. R. Act the Board has to adjust debts, and the word 'debt' is defined in Section a (5) of the S. A. D. R. Act as follows:-' 'Debt' means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from a debtor,whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or otherwise, and includes mortgage money the payment of which is secured by the usufructuary mortgage or by anomalous mortgage in the na...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Guj154; [1964]52ITR482(Guj)
K.T. Desai, C.J.1. This Reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, raises some interesting and important questions relating to the construction of Section 2(m) and Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act which have been argued with considerable vigour and ability by both the sides. One of the noteworthy features of this case is that some cases have been relied upon by both the sides in order to deduce contrary conclusions. The Raipur Manufacturing Company Limited is the assessee in this case. The assessment year in question is the year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date being the 31st December, 1956. On 11th May, 1956, a demand notice had been issued on the assesses under Section 18-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for advance payment of tax requiring the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,59,549/- in four instalments, the instalments being payable on the 15th June, 1956, the 15th September, 1956, the 15th December, 1956 and the 15th March, 1957. Prior to the valuation date, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »