Gujarat Court March 1967 Judgments
Bhailal Tribhovandas and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR136(Guj)
Divan, J.1. The assessee in this case in a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1959-60. The assessee-firm started business on June 19, 1958, and according to clause 7 of the deed of partnership, the accounts of the partnership firm were to be kept according to Samvat year. According to that clause, the accounts of the partnership were to be settled on Aso Vad 30 of every year but if net profit loss of the works done in this partnership could be determined on completion of the works undertaken, whatever profits or loss remained after deducting the expenses incidental to the business of the partnership was to be distributed amongst the partners according to the shares set out in the partnership deed. The only work carried out by this firm of building-contractors was construction of certain residential bungalows at Surendranagar and the work was completed by Aso Vad 30 of the Samvat year 2015 (October 31, 1959). The assessee contended before the Income-tax Officer that 'previous year...
Tag this Judgment!Alarakha Hassan and ors. Vs. Amir HussaIn Aladmiya and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Guj265; (1968)0GLR1050
(1) In a representative suit filed under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1961, two persons, namely, Kasambhai and hyderkhan gave an application, Ex. 127, under sub-rule (2) of Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. Code, stating that they want to be added as parties. At that time they were not added as plaintiffs. Subsequently, these two persons and two other persons, who made application (Ex. 131) were ordered to be substituted as plaintiffs in place of the original plaintiffs. That order is now challenged in revision.(2) Sub-rule (2) of Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. Code provides thus:--'(2) Any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended under sub-rule (1) may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit.'Therefore, the two persons, who gave the application (Ex. 127) had a right to be made parties to the suit. They should be added but not substituted for others.(3) Sub-rule (2) of Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. Code reads as under :--'10(2) The Court may at a...
Tag this Judgment!Yaduray Bansi Vs. Sunderbai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: (1969)GLR45
Shelat, J.1-5. * * *6. Even if, for a moment, we were to take it that she was ill-treated or beaten some time, before she went on the last occasion in March 1960, she can be taken to have duly condoned the same, and more so when she had gone to his place at Umred of her own accord. It Was urged that under Section 23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, any act of cruelty committed by her husband would obviously be taken as condoned, and therefore, that ground of cruelty cannot be considered a good ground for claiming any such relief of judicial separation. The relevant part of Section 23 of the Act provides as under :--'(1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that :-- (a) .......(b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 or in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned theact or acts compl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Saurashtra Wire-healds Manufac ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-28-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR524(Guj)
Divan, J. 1. In this reference under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the assessee-company entitled to deduction of the development rebate and additional depreciation under section 10 (2) (via) for the assessment year 1957-58 and additional depreciation under section 10 (2) (via) for the assessment year 1958-59, in respect of the new machinery imported and installed by Messrs. Sanghavi and Sons, which business was taken over by the assessee-company ?' 2. It is common ground before us that in the question which has been referred to us there is a slight omission as regards development rebate. Under the provisions of law, which were in force at the relevant time, development rebate could have been claimed only under section 10 (2) (vib) of the act and not section 10 (2) (via) of the Act, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)9GLR509; [1967]66ITR404(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This reference arises out of an assessment made for the assessment year 1958-59, there relevant account year being the period 1st July, 1956, to 30th June, 1957. The assessee was a registered firm consisting of several partners of whom one Dinshaw was a non-resident partner. While assessing the assessee under Section 23(5)(a), the Income-tax Officer, therefore, under the second proviso to that section assessed Dinshaw's share of the income on the assessee at the rate which would be applicable if it were assessed on him personally and directed that the sum so determined as payable shall be paid by the assessee. The assessee appealed against the assessment order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and one of the contentions urged by him in support of the appeal was that the assessment of Dinshaw's share of the income on the assessee under the second proviso to section 23(5)(a) was invalid since the procedure for making such assessment as required by section 22 was not...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Haridas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-27-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR213(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This reference arises out of a proceeding for assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1949-50, the relevant account year being Samvat year 2004, for income shown in the account books and the financial year 1948-49, for income from undisclosed sources. The Income-tax Officer served a notice on the assessee on 21st December, 1957, under section 28 (2) read with section 46 (1) (a) of the Saurashtra Income-tax Ordinance, 1949, calling upon the assessee to file a return of his income for the assessment year 1949-50. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a return of his income under protest and in that return he disclosed an income of Rs. 46. Immediately after filing the return the assessee took certain proceedings for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, but ultimately he failed in preventing the Income-tax Officer from proceeding with the assessment, and the Income-tax Officer made an assessment order dated 17th December,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Associati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-25-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR503(Guj)
BHAGWATI J. - This reference raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction of section 4(3) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Though the question refers both to section 4(3) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it would be sufficient to make reference only to section 4(3) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, since section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is in material respects identical with section 4(3) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, will what we say in regard to section 4(3) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, will apply equally in regard to section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference relates to the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, the relevant accounting years being the financial years ending 31st March, 1960, 31st March, 1961 and 31st March, 1962. During the relevant account years the assessee, which is an association of persons, held diverse properties under le...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Ismail and ors. Vs. Manishanker @ Maheshkumar Keshavlal Vyas a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-21-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR641
Akbar S. Sarela, J.1. The applicants in this revision application are the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant Ismailbhai Mohmmadbhai. That defendant was sued in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nadiad, by the present opponents, who were the plaintiffs of that suit for eviction from the suit premises in which that defendant was their tenant. Out of the several grounds on which eviction was sought one ground, which alone is now relevant, was that the landlords required the premises reasonably and bona fide for their own occupation. The trial Court by its judgment dated 11th February 1963, found that case made out and having further held that greater hardship would be caused by refusing to pass a decree than by passing it, it gave the landlords a decree for eviction. The original defendant went in appeal to the District Court at Nadiad. Pending the appeal the original defendant died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record. N...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Hiralal Mohanlal Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)0GLR659; [1968]69ITR312(Guj)
Bhagwati, J. 1. This reference raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the construction of sections 271(1) and 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). The assessee, who is assessed in the status of an individual, returned a total income of Rs. 8,383 for the assessment year 1960-61, the relevant account year being Samvat Year 2015. The return was admittedly filed by the assessee before 1st April, 1962, being the date of commencement of the new Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the figure of total income returned by the assessee and determined the total income to be Rs. 33,307 by an assessment order made on 24th November, 1962, after the commencement of the new Act. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceeding that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and he, therefore, made a note to the following effect at...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanprasad Haribhai Majmudar and anr. Vs. Merubhai Rayabhai and anr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-20-1967
Reported in: (1967)8GLR897
P.N. Bhagwati, J. 1. The petitioners are former Watandars of village Zezra, situate in Taluka Viramgam, District Ahmedabad. The first respondent is a tenant of the petitioners in respect of certain land situate in village Zezra. The Watan of the petitioners was abolished by the Bombay Paragna and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, and under that Act the petitioners became the occupants in respect of the said land. The said land accordingly came to be governed by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). On the tillers' day, that is, 1st April 1957, the first respondent being admittedly a tenant became the deemed purchaser of the said land and since the determination of the purchase price depended upon whether the first respondent was a protected tenant or a permanent tenant, the first respondent along with certain tenants adopted proceedings for a declaration that they were permanent tenants. These proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »