Gujarat Court September 1964 Judgments
Baroda Traders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-29-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR490(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. The question arising in this reference is one of the construction of the sub-section (2A) of 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and arises as a result of bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 18,401, in the assessment for the assessment year 1959-60. The normal accounting year of the assessee-company, while it was carrying on its business in respect of which the assessment was made, was the calendar year, but whether the calendar year can be taken to be the accounting year after the assessee-company closed that business is a matter of some controversy. 2. The assessee-company carried on business in disposal of cloth in a joint venture with Messrs. Chinubhai Jesignbhai of Baroda. The accounts of this joint venture were maintained by Messrs. Chinubhai Jesigbhai. The assessee-company suffered losses in this venture during the years 1948, 1949, and 1950. Its share of loss was from time to time debited to the account of the assessee-company in the books of Messrs. Chinubhai Jesingbh...
Tag this Judgment!Hazrat Pirmohamed Shah Saheb Roja Committee Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Guj49
Bhagwati, J.(1) This is a reference which comes before us on q requisition under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. There are two questions referred to us but they both relate to the same point, namely, whether the income of the assessee derived from properties held by it is exempt from tax under section 4(3) (i). There is also reference to section 4 (3) (ii) in the second question, but that is obviously due to some mistake because, as pointed out by the Tribunal, the claim for exemption under section 4 (3) (ii) was expressly given up by counsel who appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal and the only claim pressed was for exemption under section 4 (3) Ii). We will, therefore, delete the words 'and/or 4(3) (ii)' in the second question and confine the scope of the enquiry before us to the determination of the question whether the income of the assessee is exempt from tax under section 4(3) (i) which was the only question debated before the Tribunal. In order to a...
Tag this Judgment!Desai Shivabhai Chhotabhai Vs. Ravjibhai Motibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj158; 1965CriLJ91; (1965)0GLR14
ORDER1. This is a report submitted under Section438-a, Criminal Procedure Code, by the District Magistrate, Broach, recommending that the order dated 27th July 1963,passed by the sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpipla, in Criminal case No.23 of 1963 should be set aside. The report raises an important of law, the question being whether the law requires that a decision recorded by Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 145,CriminalPrpcedure Code, should or should not be supported by reasons, and, if it is required to be so supported of the absence of the absence of such reasons. Before setting out the rival contentions of the parties, it will be convenient to set out briefly the facts which have led up to the report. One Chaturbhai Chhotabhai of the village Umarva of Nandod Taluka, District Broach, died on 11th December 1962 leaving behind him lands situated at villages Umarva and Dhundha within the limits of Nandod Taluka. It is an admitted position that Chaturbhai did not leave behin...
Tag this Judgment!Hazrat Pirmohamed Shah Saheb Roza Committee Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-25-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR360(Guj)
The judgment of the court was delivered byBHAGWATI J. - This is a reference which comes before us on a requisition under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. There are two questions referred to us but they both relate to the same point, namely, whether the income of the assessee derived from properties held by it is exempt from tax under section 4(3)(i). There is also a reference to section 4(3)(ii) in the second question, but that is obviously due to some mistake because, as pointed out by the Tribunal, the claim for exemption under section 4(3)(ii) was expressly given up by counsel who appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal and the only claim pressed was for exemption under section 4(3)(i). We will, therefore, delete the words 'and/or section 4(3)(ii)' in the second question and confine the scope of the inquiry before us to the determination of the question whether the income of the assessee is exempt from tax under section 4(3)(i) which was the only question de...
Tag this Judgment!Girasia Lakhubha Pathubha Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ727; (1966)GLR700
V.B. Raju, J.1. These appeals which arise out of the same judgment of conviction, will be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, convicted Lakhubha Pathubha, Rasubha Ajaji, Bho vansang Hanubha Manubhai Pathubha and Revtubha Pathubha, accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively, under Sections (1) 417/34, (2) 420/34, (3) 465, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 and (4)471 read with Sub-section 465, 467, 468 read with Section 34,1. P. Code. The I facts are that the complainant, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 are relatives and they own jointly certain lands. In order to take a loan from the Land Mortgage Bank for purchasing a tractor a mortgage document was executed. It was properly executed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. But as regards the complaint Natasha, one Bhikhubha Jalamsang signed for the complainant. Bhikhubha Jalamsang admits that he did so, but according to him he did it at the instance of the complainant and on behalf of the complainant. But this fact is deni...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. L.H. Vora
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR126(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(I) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the Commissioner. The reference arises out of imposition of penalties under section 28(I)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, the corresponding previous years being the years ending March 31, 1952 and March 31, 1953, respectively. 2. The assessee, during the material period, was engaged as an agent and was earning remuneration as such agent and for that purpose had resided at Delhi. For the two assessment years, he filed his returns declaring his income at Rs. 6,000 and odd for the assessment year 1952-53 and Rs. 6,768 for the assessment year 1953-54. In respect of the assessment year 1952-53, he revised his returns at a subsequent date, declaring his total income for that year at Rs. 3,337. It is an admitted fact that he did not maintain any books of accounts in respect of his employment. The returns filed by him were in due course investigated by the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Acharya D.V. Pande Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj262; [1965]56ITR152(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.(1) This Reference raises two questions relating to the assessment of the assessee who is the Acharya, that is, spiritual preceptor of one of the two dioceses of the religious denomination known as Swaminarayanan Sampradaya. In order to able to arrive at a proper determination of thee questions, it is necessary to go a little into the history of the Scheme by the High Court in Appeal No. 430 of 1927. The entire history is set out in the judgment of the High Court in that appeal and that judgment having been referred to and relied upon in the order of the Tribunal, a copy of it has been taken on record by us by consent parties. The whole of the history is however not material and we will, therefore, state only so much of it as is necessary for the purpose of the present Reference. (2) This Sampradaya which has a large number of adherents in this part of the country was founded by a great Hindu religious reformer named Sahajanand Swami who came to Gujarat in the early part of...
Tag this Judgment!Mehta Jivanlal Vasantji Vs. the Trustees of Gayatri Mandir
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1964
Reported in: (1965)6GLR194
B.J. Divan, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is the original defendant and he was working as the 'Pujari' of a temple ca Hed ' Gayatri Mandir' at Rajkot. The plaintiffs, who are the opponents in this Civil Revision Application are the trustees of the 'Gayatri Mandir'. In 1958 the trustees filed a suit being Suit No. 705 of 1958 and that suit is pending in the Court of the 5th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Rajkot. In this suit the plaintiffs-trustees sought removal of the Pujari on various grounds viz. (a) old age of the Pujari and (b) the alleged breaches and violations of the rules of the Trust. The defendant in his written statement contended that the trust was not valid. He also challenged the validity of the appointments of the plaintiffs as the Trustees of Gayatri Mandir. He also challenged the validity of the rules with the breach or violation of which he was charged and he further challenged the competence of the trustees to remove the Pujari from his p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Meganlal Vs. Savitaben and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Guj281; 1965CriLJ638; (1965)0GLR878
ORDER(1) This revision application arises out of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Surat, under S.488, Criminal P.C., allowing maintenance to a wife and a child. In revision, two points are urged. Firstly, it is contended that sub-s. (4) of S.488, Criminal P.C., has not been considered by the learned Magistrate. That sub-section reads as follows:'No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery or that without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.'It is contended that the wife has refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, although the husband has offered to take the wife provided she behaves well. An offer by the husband to keep the wife may be made before the application is filed. It may be made after the application is filed and before the order is passed. It may be made after the order is p...
Tag this Judgment!Rayma Jusab Alimamad Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-14-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ448; (1965)GLR776
V.B. Raju, J.1. The appellant was convicted under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against him was that being the Talati, he had erased the signature on a previous receipt issued by the previous Talati and substituted his own signature on that receipt in order to show that the amount had been really received by him and not by the previous Talati and in order to save the previous Talati from the charge of the misappropriation of the amount previously paid to him. To prove such a charge, the prosecution must prove that the previous signature on the receipt had been erased by the accused, and that in addition to doing so he had put his own signature after cancelling the previous signature. On this point, there is no evidence whatsoever except the evidence of the Mamlatdar, who has deposed as follows:The signature of Vithaldas Virji seems to have been erased or cancelled and the accused Yusuf has placed his signature in place of the signature of Vithaldas. It appears that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »