Gujarat Court November 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.
Ahmedabad Silk Factory Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-12-1964
Reported in: (1965)0GLR612; [1966]18STC23(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business as manufacturer of cloth and was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. On 13th December, 1957, being the day appointed by the State Government in respect of cloth manufactured in mills or on power-looms under Section 2(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Special Exemptions) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Exemption Act) the assessee had stock of grey or unfinished cloth of the value of Rs. 2,13,676. The assessee converted this stock of grey or unfinished cloth into finished cloth by performing the process of bleaching, dyeing and printing on it and sold such finished cloth in the market during the period 13th December, 1957, to 31st March, 1958. The assessee in its assessment to sales tax for the assessment period 1st April, 1957, to 31st March, 1958, claimed that the sales of finished cloth effected by it as aforesaid were exempt from sales tax by reason...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Keshavlal Chandulal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1964
Reported in: (1965)0GLR419; [1966]59ITR120(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner, and arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1960-1961 and of which the previous year is Samvat year 2015 (corresponding to the period November 12, 1958, to October 31, 1959). The assessee-firm was constituted under a partnership deed of June 29, 1957, and was comprised of seven partners with shares specified below : 1. Keshavlal Trikamlal ...... 25%2. Himatlal Lavjibhai ...... 8-1/3%3. Kantilal Lavjibhai ...... 8-1/3%4. Chandulal Lavjibhai ...... 8-1/3%5. Vardhman Moolji ...... 18-3/4%6. Virchand Chunilal ...... 18-3/4%7. Ratilal Maganlal ...... 12-1/2% 2. Clause 2 of the deed of partnership provided that the main business of the firm was to be the purchase of open plots of land for construction of building, construction and sale of new building and any other business addition thereto with the consent of all the partners. After the firm was so const...
Manilal Maganlal Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR25
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a criminal revision application against the conviction of the applicant for breach of Schedule Chapter 2 and Section 376(1)(d)(i) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 punishable under Schedule Chapter 25 and Section 392(1)(a) of the said Act.2. The main contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that the complaint was filed by the Licence Inspector whereas the delegation under Section 69 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act was to the Deputy Health Officer to take proceedings as provided in Section 481 of the said Act. His contention is that the expression take proceedings means instituting a complaint and that only the Deputy Health Officer to whom the power of taking proceedings has been delegated can file a complaint and not the Licence Inspector as has been actually done in this case.3. The Learned Counsel for opponent No. 2 contends that the phrase take proceedings does not necessarily include the filing of a co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›