Gujarat Court September 1971 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. Raipur Manufacturing Compan ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR508(Guj)
The judgment of the court was delivered byDIVAN J. - This reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the Rs. 76,161 ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a public limited company and is carrying on business of manufacturing and dealing in textiles. The relevant assessment year is 1963-64 and the previous year was accounting year 1962 (calendar year). It appears that in the year of the account in question in pursuance of an agreement, dated March 1, 1962, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 76,161 to the liquidator of the Raipur Mills Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the society') and this society was for the benefit of the employees of the assessee-company and the members of the society were the employees...
Swastik Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-08-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR117(Guj)
P.N. Bhagawati, C.J. 1. These two reference raise a very interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of section 221, sub-section (1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is whether, on a proper construction of section 221, sub-section (1), penalty is attracted when an assessee makes default in payment of the instalment of advance tax required to be paid by him by virtue of an order make under section 210. To appreciate how the question arises, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the references. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business at Rajkot it is being assessed as a registered firm. By an order in writing under section 210 sub-section (1), the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the case of assessee, required the assessee to pay advance tax on the basis of the assessment for the assessment year 1063-64 which was the last completed assessment at the time and pursuant to this order, a notice of demand dated 23rd August, 1...
Amritlal Chhaganlal (Deceased) and Another (by Legal Representative) V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR677(Guj)
The judgment of the court was delivered byBHAGWATI C.J. - These two references raise a common question of law and they are also based on substantially similar facts and it would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment. We will first state the facts giving rise to Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1970. The assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 3 of 1970, since deceased, was a partner in the firm called Messrs. Dalwadi and Company. The assessee owned a piece of agricultural land in or around the city of Ahmedabad. By an oral contract the assessee authorised Messrs. Dalwadi and Company to enter upon his land and to dig and remove earth from the land for being used for manufacturing bricks. The statement of the case does not show what was the consideration for which this authorisation was granted by the assessee but we were told by the counsel for the assessee, and this was not disputed on behalf of the revenue, that the consideration payable by Messrs. Dalwadi and Co...
Jai Hind Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR309(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J. 1. This reference raises a short question as to whether certain proceedings initiated by the revenue for reassessment of the assessment are valid under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is 1957-58, the relevant precious year being Samvat year 2012, that is, 15th November, 1955, to 2nd November, 1956. The assessee is a registered firm and it carries on business of printing and publishing newspaper. The assessee had a rotary machine for the purpose of its business which it sold in the relevant year of account on 28th October, 1956. The original cost price of the machine was Rs. 24,550 and it was sold for Rs. 50,000. The assessee thus realiseed a profit or gain of Rs. 25,450. Now capital gains were made chargeable to tax with effect from 1st April, 1956, by introduction of section 12B in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 12B provided, inter alia, that the tax shall be payable by an assessee u...
Patel Shanabhai Vithalbhai Vs. Patel Bakorbhai Vithalbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj184
ORDER1. An interesting question relating the interpretation of Ss. 32 and 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act' which does not appeal to have been debated so far clamours for solution in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of a tenant who, according to the landlord, was dispossessed without due authority of law 3 days before the tillers' day (April 1. 1957). The proposition has been canvassed on behalf of the landlord that if on the tillers' day the tenant was not in actual physical possession, he is not entitled to the benefit of Sections 32 and 32-G of the Tenancy Act notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had obtained possession of the land in question without due authority of law and even if the tenancy has not been lawfully terminated. The proposition canvassed by the landlord has found favour with the Revenue Tribunal and that has provided the tenant with the occasion to app...
Lilaram Jamiatrai and ors. Vs. Meghraj Hardasmal Kalwani and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Guj66
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of the suit for possession between a landlord and a tenant. The plaintiff-landlord filed in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baroda Regular Civil Suit No.490 of 1963 for recovering possession of the suit premises from the defendants on three grounds. His first ground was that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation. His second ground was that the defendants had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises and his third ground was that the defendants had caused damage to the suit property. The learned Trial Judge negatived the plaintiff's contentions relating to unlawful sub-letting and damage to the suit property but upheld the contention that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation. In that view of the matter he passed against the defendants decree of possession.The defendants appealed to the district Court. The learned Extra Assistant Judge...
Chhotu Bhagirath Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ548; (1972)GLR794
ORDERT.U. Mehta, J.1. This reference is preferred by the Court of Sessions Judge Rajkot. District Rajkot, in Criminal Revision Application No. 19 of 1971 of his file which was preferred by accused Chhotu Bhagirath, who was one of the two accused persons convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate. First Class (Railways) Raikot in Criminal Case No. 408 of 1971 under Section 120(b) of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Magistrate is found to have imposed a fine of Rs. 25/- for the said offence and has further ordered that in default of the payment of the fine the accused shall undergo S. I. of one week. Originally the accused had filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, but this appeal was converted into revision. In the appeal memo, the accused has made a grievance that his conviction under Section 120 (b) of the Indian Railways Act. was not justified as he was a Railway Servant. For this proposition the accused relied upon the decision given by a Division Bench of the Bomb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›