Gujarat Court December 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.
A. Raman and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Group Circle-j, Ahmedabad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR290(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This petition is for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition or any other appropriate writ or orders, quashing or setting aside three notices dated March 28, 1964, issued under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, and prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with any reassessment pursuant to the said notices. 2. The petitioner-firm was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1959-60 by the Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Ward I, Ahmedabad, and for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 by the Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Ward A, Ahmedabad. For the assessment year 1962-63, the petitioner-firm filed its returns before the Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Ward A, Ahmedabad, but its case was transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Group Circle J, and at present the respondent is in charge of the assessments of the petitioner-firm for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. 3. The petitioner-firm h...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Kalidas Naranbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC245(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. A question of some nicety and importance arises on this reference. The question is whether on a true construction Rule 12(1-A) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Exemptions, Set-off and Composition) Rules, 1954, entitles a dealer to claim remission or refund of purchase tax paid by him on purchase of goods where both the purchase and the subsequent sale took place prior to the coming into force of the rule. The facts giving rise to the reference are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The assessees at all material times fcarried on business as dealers in raw tobacco and were registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The assesses elected to pay sales tax under Section 10A of the Act. In the assessment year 1955-56 commencing on 1st April, 1955, and ending on 31st March, 1956, the assessees purchased different varieties of raw tobacco from unregistered dealers for the price of Rs. 46,932 and these purchases being from unregistered dealers, the assessees became liable to...
Mahijibhai Mohanbhai Barot Vs. Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR901
A.K. Sarkar, J.1. These appeals arise from two miscellaneous applications made to the trial Court which was the Court of the Civil Judge Nadiad in the State of Gujarat. One of these applications was for execution of orders for costs awarded and the other was under Section 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of money and property taken in execution of a decree reversed in appeal. The appellant is the successor in interest of the plaintiff in the suit out of the proceedings of which these appeals arise and the respondents were the defendants there.2. The appellants predecessor-in-interest had filed the suit for possession of land against the respondents and another person now dead. The suit was decreed with costs by the trial Court on November 30 1945 but that decree was set aside on July 13 1949 on appeal by the defendants to the High Court of Bombay. While the appeal was pending the appellants predecessor-in-interest had in execution of the decree of the trial Court obta...
induprasad Devshanker Bhatt Vs. J.P. Jani and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj47; (1965)GLR433; [1965]58ITR559(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition is directed against a notice dated 13th November 1663 issued by the Income-tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-G, Ahmedabad, under Section 148 of theIncome-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The notice is impugned as invalid on three grounds which we shall presently state. But in order to understand and appreciate those grounds, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts. The petitioner was assessed to tax as an individual for the assessment year 1947-48 and his assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward E, Circle II, Ahmedabad, by an order of assessment dated 31st January 1952. The Income-tax Officer thereafter received information that a certain profit alleged to have been made by one Natwarlal Manilal Pandit on sale of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 63 at Vastrapur really belonged to the petitioner since Natwarlal Manilal Pandit was merely a benamidar of the petitioner and that the said profit had escaped assessment by r...
Shankerlal Lallubhai and ors. Vs. Bai Jiykor and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj40; (1965)6GLR177
1. This is a Second Appeal by a plaintiff: It arises out of a suit instituted by appellant for redemption of the suit property and for its possession. The mortgage which was sought to be redeemed was created on 17th February 1930. It was an anomalous mortgage partaking of the characteristics of simple and usufructuary mortgages. The amount advanced under the mortgage deed was Rs. 6,500 and interest was payable at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Original defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who are respondents Nos. 3 and 4, were the mortgagors. The mortgagors remained in possession of the whole of the property until 24th of February 1932. The mortgagee took possession of the upper storey of the mortgaged property on the latter date and the ground-floor on 25th of October 1933. It is common ground that mortgagee was in possession of the whole of the property since the latter date. Original defendant No. 1 was the mortgagee. She died during the pendency of the litigation and is now represented by r...
State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi and Manubhai Motilal Pat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR698
J.C. Shah, J.1. The question which falls to be determined in these appeals is whether in exercise of the power under Section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court has authority to summon a person accused of an offence before it to produce a document or a thing in his possession. The words of the clause are general: they contain no express limitation nor do they imply any restriction excluding the person accused of an offence from its operation. In terms the section authorises any Court or any officer in charge of a police-station to issue a summons or written order to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be requiring such person to attend and produce it at the time and place indicated in the summons or order. The scheme of the Code also appears to be consistent with that interpretation. Chapter VI of the Code deals with process to compel appearance. A Court may under Section 68 issue a summons for the attendance of any person whether a...
Nathalal Dhanjibhai Vs. K.P. Majumdar, Income-tax Officer, Ward B Petl ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR615(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. This special civil application challenges the validity of the notice issued on December 16, 1958, in respect of the assessment year 1949-50 under section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922. 2. The petitioner was assessed as an individual on the total income of Rs. 6,482 for the assessment year 1950-51, the relative accounting year being Samvat year 2005. His major source of income during that year was his share in a partnership called the Nipani Tobacco Stores. During the relevant accounting period, i.e., Samvat year 2005, the petitioner had brought in capital of Rs. 35,502 into that partnership. On January 23, 1957, the Income-tax Officer served a notice upon the petitioner under section 34(1) asking the petitioner to submit his return of income for the assessment year 1950-51. In pursuance of that notice, the petitioner filed his return of income indicating Rs. 6,482 as his total income in accordance with the original order of assessment. The respondent, however, held...
Pirbhai Janubhai Shaikh and ors. Vs. B.R. Manepatil and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Guj175; (1965)GLR554
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition challenges a determination made by the Collector under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The determination came to he made by the Collector under the following circumstances. The first and second petitioners owned a piece of land admeasuring 55 square yards situate at Lal Darwaja in the city of Ahmedabad. They agreed to grant a lease of the said piece of land to the third petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in a draft indenture of lease which was agreed upon between the parties. The third petitioner brought the draft indenture of lease to the Collector and applied to have the opinion of the Collector as to the duty with which it was chargeable under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. This application was made on 20th June 1961 and was accompanied by the requisite fee directed by the Collector. On receipt of the application, it appears, the Collector felt doubt as to the amount of duty with which the draft indenture of lease was c...
Ramanlal Ashabhai Patel Vs. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinghiji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR423
J.R. Mudholkar, J.1. The main question which arises for decision in this appeal from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court is whether the appellant could be said to be guilty of a corrupt practice contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by reason of the fact that his election symbol a star was described as Dhruva star in the pamphlets published and distributed by him or by his agents and in which the qualities of Dhruva star were also set out.2. The election to the Assembly seat was contested by three candidates the appellant respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The appellant having secured 20 62 votes as against 15,190 secured by the first respondent and 7 93 by the second respondent was declared to be elected on February 26 1962 The first respondent thereupon preferred an election petition before the Election Commission challenging the appellants election on the following five grounds:(1) That...
Maganlal Haribhakti Vs. Giriraj A. Parikh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR175
V.B. Raju, J.1. The applicant was convicted under Section 193 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act for having disobeyed a notice given to him under Section 135 of the said Act. The contention that the notice under Section 135 of the said Act is bad is rejected because the notice clearly requires the applicant to demolish and close the privies. The contention that permission of the standing committee must be proved is rejected because the words in the Section are subject to the control of the standing committee and the words with the permission of the standing committee are not there. But the last contention that there is no evidence that in the opinion of the Chief Officer there is nuisance is sound. In Emperor v. DSilva 39 Bom. L.R. 77 it is held by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court that the opinion must be properly proved. I agree with this view because one of the requirements which must be satisfied before the section can be applied is that in the opinion of the Chief Offi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »