Gujarat Court October 1964 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vs. Shantilal Punja ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj106
1. This reference arises out of re-assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1944-1945, 1945-1946 and 1946-1947, the relevant previous years being Samvat Years 1999. 2000 and 2001 respectively. The reassessment proceedings were adopted having recourse to the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. The facts for all the three assessment years are similar and hence, it is possible to take the facts relevant to the assessment year 1944-1945 as typical. That was also the way in which the case was presented to us by the learned Advocate General.2. The assessce Shantilal Punjabhai used to he assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment year 1944-1945, he filed his returns in which he included his share of profits in the firm of Messrs. Bharat Cloth Agency. The asscssee, at the material time, was a member of the Hindu undivided family known as Punjabhai Deepchand. In the course of the assessment proceedings of that family also for the assessment...
Laljimal Premsukhdas and anr. Vs. B.K. Kombrabail, Div. Superintendent ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-01-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR282
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This group of five writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises common questions about the constitutional validity of a certain Order to be presently mentioned and its true construction. The facts leading up to the presentation of those petitions though not the same are similar. Mr. Nanavati concedes that the ultimate result of these petitions does not depend upon individual facts therein but depends entirely upon the decision reached on the questions of law. Therefore it is not necessary for us to set out the facts obtaining in each of the five petitions. However in order to understand the points of law involved it is necessary that we should state the facts of one of those petitions. We propose to set out the facts obtained in Special Civil Application No. 592 of 1964. Petitioner No. 1 therein is a partnership Firm of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. Petitioner Firm placed an order on 4th July 1964 with M/s. Milap and Co. Rajkot fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›