Gujarat Court October 1970 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. R.M. Amin. (Legal Represent ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR194(Guj)
Bhagwati, J.1. This reference raises a very interesting question of law relating to the construction of section 45 read with section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is whether a certain amount received by the assessee on liquidation of Kowolongojo Cinneries Ltd., Kamplal, a private limited company incorporated in Uganda (hereinafter referred to as the Uganda company), in respect of 192 shares held by him in that company to the extent to which it exceeded the value of those shares on 1st January, 1954, represents capital gain within the meaning of section 45 read with section 2(47) of the Act. The assessee held, in the share capital of the Uganda company, 192 shares of the aggregate face value of shillings 1,92,000 that is , Rs. 1,28,000. The Uganda company went into voluntary liquidation by a special resolution dated 10th July, 1961, and in the liquidation, the assets of the Uganda company were sold by the liquidator and after payment of debts and liabilities, the final...
Gujarat Beedi Karkhana Owners' Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1970
Reported in: (1971)GLR690; (1972)ILLJ253Guj
J.B. Mehta, J. 1. In these two petitions the petitioners challenge the vires of the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Although the first petition was intended to be filed as the representative petition by the association, no permission under O. 1 R. 8 was ultimately obtained. Therefore, both the petitions are filed by the individual employers. There is no dispute that all these employers are employing workers for the manufacture of beedi either on their premises or they employ home-workers. The existing employment in the present cases is not through contract labour but those provisions are challenged as the Act covers within its scope even the contract labour which would be getting the same conditions of employment as prescribed by the Act. In the beginning various points were sought to be raised in these petitions but ultimately the challenge on the ground that there is a violation of the guarantee of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Tikyomal Jasanmal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-15-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR95(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The question which arises for determination in this reference is a narrow one and it relates to the interpretation of section 54 of the Income tax Act 1961. The facts giving rise to the reference are few and may be briefly stated as follows. The assessee is a refugee from Pakistan. He purchased a house property at an auction held by the rehabilitation department. The price was Rs. 6,825 and it was paid by the assessee by way of adjustment of his claim for compensation in respect of properties left in Pakistan. This house property was used by the assessee mainly for the purpose of his own residence right up to 26th June, 1962 when he sold it for the price of Rs. 40,000. The sale of the house property resulted in a capital gain of Rs. 33,175. The assessee by utilising the sale proceeds purchased a piece of land on 30th July, 1962, and started constructing a building on it in August, 1962. The construction of the ground floor of the building was completed by March, 1...
Surat Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR1(Guj)
B.J. Divan, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, arises under the following circumstances : The relevant year of account is calendar year 1959 and the assessment year is 1960-61. The assessee is a limited company and carries on the business of manufacturing and selling textiles. In the calendar year 1959, the company had installed what is called a cheese dyeing plant, the total cost of which came to Rs. 1,44,575. This plant was installed in the year 1959, though it had been purchased earlier, and it had started working with effect from November 1, 1959. When the return for the assessment year 1960-61 was filed by the assessee, it had not claimed any development rebate in respect of the sum of Rs. 36,144, which worked out at 25% of the original cost of instalment. In its return the assessee had claimed initial depreciation in accordance with the law prevailing at the time when the cheese dyeing plant was purchased by...
The State of Gujarat Vs. Karimbhai Jamalbhai Memon and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1970
Reported in: [1972]29STC95(Guj)
1. A question of great relevance (and of equally great importance) relating to the sentencing policy has surfaced in Criminal Revision Application No. 301 of 1970 directed against an order imposing a fine of Rs. 10 upon two businessmen pleading guilty to the charge of filing false sales tax returns and of evading payment of sales tax on sales exceeding one lakh rupees. A similar question has also raised its head in Criminal Revision Application No. 300 of 1970 where the charge was in regard to the filing of a false return and on a plea of guilty a fine of Rs. 10 was imposed on the same two businessmen. 2. Criminal Revision Application No. 300 of 1970 arises out of Criminal Case No. 628 of 1970. The case was instituted upon the requisite sanction to prosecute being granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Administration, Range II, Ahmedabad, under section 67 read with section 20(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The sanction was embod...
Chooharmal Wadhuram (Decd.) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-08-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR360(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwathi, C.J.1. There is only one question which now remainsto be determined on this reference. There were originally five questionsreferred to us for our opinion but of them, the third was not pressed onbehalf of the assessee and the first, second and fourth were decided againstthe assessee when the reference was earlier heard by us. Our decisiondisposing of those questions is now reported as Chooharmal Wadhuram v.Commissioner of Income-tax, [1968] 69 I.T.R. 88 (Guj.). The fifth question could not be disposed ofby us at that time as we felt that in view of certain observations made bythe Supreme Court in First Addl. Income-tax Officer v. Mrs. SuseelaSadanandan, [1965] 57 I.T.R. 168 (S.C.). it was necessary to call for a supplemental statement of thecase. The supplemental statement of the case has now been received, and,hence, the reference is before us for determination of the fifth question.2. The facts giving rise to the reference have already been stated by us in our earlier...
Velo Industries Vs. Collector, Bhavnagar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR291(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The question which arises for consideration on the reference is as to what is the proper article of the Act under which a creation instrument executed between the partners of Messrs. Velo Industries is chargeable. To determine the question it is necessary to refer briefly to a few facts giving rise to the reference. Prior to Aso Vad Amas Samvat year 2021, ten persons carried on business in partnership in the firm name of Messrs. Velo Industries. Three of them retired from the firm with effect from Aso Vad Amas Samvat year 2021 leaving the other seven as continuing partners of the firm. The terms and conditions of retirement were recorded in an instrument dated 24th October, 1963, executed by and between the partners and, since the entire controversy between the parties has turned on the true interpretation of this instrument, it would be de...
Vrajlal Makandas Valiya Vs. L.D. Joshi, Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1970
Reported in: (1971)12GLR586
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 54(1A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The question which arises for consideration on the reference is as to what is the proper Article of the Act under which a certain instrument executed between the partners of Messrs. Velo Industries is chargeable. To determine the question it is necessary to refer briefly to a few facts giving rise to the reference. Prior to Also Vad Amas, Samvat Year 2021, ten persons carried on business in partnership in the firm name of Messrs. Velo Industries. Three of (hem retired from the firm with effect from Also Vad Amas Samvat Year 2021 leaving the other seven as continuing partners of the firm. The terms and conditions of retirement were recorded in an instrument dated 24th October 1963 executed by and between the partners and since the entire controversy between the parties has turned on the true interpretation of this instrument, it would be des...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›