Gujarat Court September 1965 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. B.M. Kharwar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR370(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to us in this reference is 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 40,743 is assessable to tax by applying the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The present reference arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1959-60 on the assessee which is assessed as a registered firm, and the relevant previous year is Samvat Year 2014 (October 24, 1957 to November 11, 1958). The assessee-firm was carrying on business of manufacturing art silk cloth at surat and had still have branches at Bombay, Calcutta and Rangoon. The firm maintained and still maintains separate books of account for each of these branches. The business of manufacturing art silk cloth at surat was carried on by the assessee-firm up to June 17, 1958, when it was taken over by a private limited company. The assessee-firm has eighteen partners and the private limited company which took over t...
Tag this Judgment!Motising Chhagasing Vaghela Vs. S.D. Mehta
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj233; 1966CriLJ1001; (1966)0GLR409
Miabhoy, J.1. Petitioner Motising Chhagu-sing Vaghela has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that, at all the relevant times, petitioner was an unarmed Police Head Constable and as such, an employee of the former Bombay State. The original respondent was Shri C. M. Thaker, who was District Superintendent of Police. Mehsana There is no dispute that he was, at the relevant time, the officer competent to dismiss petitioner from service. The present respondent Shri S. D. Mehta is the successor in-office of the original respondent Shri C. M. Thaker It will be convenient to mention the facts leading up to the present petition at first. On 16th April 1959, petitioner was serving at Patan Police Station, District Mehsana. On that day, he was suspended by the original respondent on the ground that he was involved in a corruption case. Subsequently, petitioner was prosecuted in Special Case No. 3 of 1959 before the learned Special Judge. Mehsa...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Vithaldas Vs. the Union of India
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj130
(1) Second Appeals Nos. 476, 477 and 478 of 1960 are filed against the Union of India owning the Western Railway and the North Eastern Railway. They arise out of suits filed against the Union of India as representing the said railways for damages in respect of consignments of potatoes despatched from Farukhabad and which were received in damaged condition at Bhavanagar. Second Appeal No. 1188 of 1960 is filed against the Union of India as representing the Western Railway as regards a consignment sent to Palitana from Farukhabad. The facts in all these appeals are very similar and the points of law involved are the same. Therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates of both sides, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. It will be expedient, however to discuss separately some questions of facts and the effect of the position of law in Second Appeal No. 1183 of 1960. (2) Civil Suit Nos. 220 of 1956, 219 of 1956 and 221 of 1956 were filed by Tulsidas V...
Tag this Judgment!Bikhubhai Ranchodji Desai Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Guj11
(1) In this case, the learned Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari has convicted the Appellant, but he has acted on the evidence recorded by his predecessor, namely, the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to Magistrates and not to the Sessions Judges, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 690 at p. 692. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside, and it is ordered that there should be a re-trial.(2) Appeal allowed;(3) Retrial ordered....
Tag this Judgment!Bhikubhai Ranchhodji Desai Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: (1966)7GLR24
V.B. Raju, J.1. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge of Bulsar at Navsari has convicted the appellant, but he has acted on the evidence recorded by his predecessor, namely, the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. Section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to Magistrates and not to the Sessions Judges, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab : (1962)ILLJ637SC 2. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside and it is ordered that there should be a re-trial....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Ajay Printery Private Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR811(Guj)
J.M. Shelat, C.J.1. This reference involves the interpretation of the words 'in the case of an Indian company whose business consists wholly in the manufacture or processing of goods' occurring in Explanation 2 to section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The respondent-company is a private limited company carrying on business of printing balance-sheets, profit and loss accounts, pamphlets, dividend warrants and share certificates patrticularly required by a group of textile mills under the control of Kasturbhai Lalbhai, and also pamphlets, circulars, etc., for other customers besides the said group of mills. The reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The respondent-company first dividend to the extent of 43 per cent. of its net income, but later on, on receiving a notice from the Income-tax Officer, it declared a further dividend of 2 per cent., thereby making there total quantum of dividend declared at 45 per cent. The Income-tax Officer however was of the view th...
Tag this Judgment!Thacker and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR540(Guj)
Shelat, C.J.1. Between November 14, 1957, and March 27, 1960, one Jayantilal Thacker and Pravinchandra Thacker carried on business in the firm name and style of Thacker & Company. The business of the firm was in mill-gin stores and spare parts. On March 27, 1960, Pravinchandra Thacker retired from the said business. On March 28, 1960, Jayantilal entered into an agreement with his brother, Kantilal, to carry on the same business in partnership in the name and style of Thacker & Company, and the two brothers agreed to admit their minor brother, Dilipkumar, to the benefits of that partnership. On August 1, 1960, Jayantilal, Kantilal and the said minor, Dilipkumar, through his guardian, Lalji Thacker, entered into an agreement acknowledging thereby that a partition of the said former business of Thacker & Company had taken place on March 26, 1960, and that the amount standing in the account of Jayantilal in that business was distributed in three accounts, namely, Jayantilal Rs. 11,919, Kan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Shivlal Dayaram Panchal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR298(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. A very short question arises on this reference, namely, whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference relates to the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, the relevant account years being Samvat year 2011 (27th October, 1954, to 14th November, 1955), and Samvat year 2012 (15th November, 1955, to 2nd November, 1956). The assessee-firm was originally constituted under a deed of partnership dated 17th January, 1952, and so constituted it consisted of three sons and a mother as partners and the fourth son, namely, Nandubhai, who was then a minor aged about 17 years, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Nandubhai attained majority on 27th September, 1954, but he did not give within six months of attaining majority public notice whether he had elected to become or not to become a partner of the assessee-firm with the result that he became a partner in the assessee-firm on the expire of the period ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Thacker Kaku and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj217; 1966CriLJ990; (1966)0GLR829
N.G. Shelat, J.1. to 8. xx xx xx 9. With regard to the evidence of Gulabrai, it was urged by Mr. Mankad, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, that his statement recorded by the investigating officer in the case was not supplied to the accused as is required under Section 173 Sub-section (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that consequently the probative value of his evidence would be materially affected. Sub-section (4) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as under.-After forwarding a report under this Section, the officer in charge of the police station shall, before the commencement of the inquiry or trial, furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the report for-worded under Sub-section (1) and of the first information report recorded under Section 184 and of all other documents or relevant extract thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, including the statements and confessions, if any recorded under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Gujarat Vs. Govindlal Manilal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Guj146; 1966CriLJ746; (1965)GLR806
ORDER1. The State of Gujarat has filed this Revision Application against the orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Banskanatha at Palanpur, on llth March 1966 whereby the learned Sessions Judge released the opponent Govindlal Manila) Shah of Deesa on bail in anticipation of his arrest. The opponent Govindlal had preferred an application, being Misc. Application No. 5/65, before the learned Sessions Judge, Banskanatha at Palanpur, for releasing him on hail on the ground that one Popatlal Takershi had given a complaint against him to the police for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as after completing the investigation the police authorities had obtained sanction of the Government to prosecute him for the said offence. He had, therefore preferred an application for releasing him on bail in anticipation of his arrest. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the amendment made in Section 497 by adding the words 'suspected of the commis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »