Gujarat Court December 1972 Judgments
Poonjabhai Vanmalidas and Sons (H.U.F.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: [1974]95ITR251(Guj)
Divan, J.1. This Full Bench was originally constituted to consider whether the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court in Kanji Ranchhod v. Commissioner of Income-tax interpreting the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer lays down the correct principles in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Additional Income-tax Officer and Sowdagar Ahmed Khan v. Income-tax Officer. Moreover, after the matter was partly heard by us, the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. was reported and the matter before us has to be considered in the light of this latest decision. We have heard the learned advocates of both the sides regarding this decision. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated : 3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the relevant year of account is S. Y. 2,000 i.e...
Tag this Judgment!Lady Tanumati Girijaprasad Chinubhai Since Decd. (by Her Heirs Etc.) V ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR537
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. I entirely agree with my brother Divan J., but in view of the importance of the question involved, I would like to add a few words of my own in regard to the last contention of the petitioners that the Court-fees levied on an application for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not a fee but a tax and Article 15 of the First Schedule to the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, which provides for levy of such court-fees is, therefore, outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It was common ground between the parties, and in any event it cannot now be disputed in view of a recent decision given by the Supreme Court on 1lth November 1972 in Civil Appeal No. 293 of 1967 : The Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department v. Zenith Lamp & Electrical Ltd., (yet unreported) : [1973]2SCR973 that it' Court-fee levied under Article 15 of the First Schedule is a tax and not a fee, it would be beyond the competence of the State Legi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigara
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR288(Guj)
Bhagwati, C.J.1. This reference raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the construction of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965. The question is not free from difficulty and it has caused us some anxiety to reach our conclusion. To appreciate the question, it is necessary to state a few facts giving rise to the reference. 2. The assessee is an individual and during the account years relevant to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65, the assessee carried on business at Bombay, Dhoraji, Veraval and several other places. The assessments of the assessee to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65 were completed by the Wealth-tax Officer in due course on the basis of the returns submitted by the assessee. Now, it appears that there was a considerable amount of unaccounted income in circulation which was concealed from revenue authorities and this unaccounted income was a source of great mischief in the economy. The question as to how to mitigate this evil ...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Ashabhai Somabhai Vs. Patel Ishwarbhai Lallubhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj254; (1974)0GLR77
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The respondents is the original plaintiff and the appellant is the original defendants. The respondent filed against the appellant a civil suit to recover a sum of Rs. 3,5000. Decree was passed in that suit for a sum of Rs. 2,500. the decretal amount was ordered to bear further interest and was made payable by instalments. The appellant committed defaults in payment of certain decretal instalments. Therefore the respondent filed Execution Application No. 166 of 1965 against the appellant to recover from him the balance of the entire decretal amount which had remained unpaid. In that execution application the appellant contended that he was an agriculturist and that therefore his houses were not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree passed against him. He also contended that the agricultural lands belonging to him had been fragments and that therefore. they also could not be attached and sold in execution of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Babubhai Khandubhai Desai and ors. Vs. Amreli Municipality
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: (1973)14GLR662
B.J. Divan, J.1. There are 40 petitioners in this Special Civil Application and they contend that all of them are carrying on business at the New Vegetable Market in Amreli Town of Amreli District. The Respondent is the Amreli Municipality constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioners, they are businessmen doing different types of businesses. They carry on their respective business in cabins or stalls owned by the petitioners and situated on the land purchased by the Municipality from the State Government. Formerly on this plot of land there were Police Head-quarters but subsequently the land was purchased by the Municipality for the purpose of putting up the market. In the case of some of the petitioners, they carry on businesses for which licences are required to be obtained from the Municipality and each of such petitioners has obtained the necessary licence from the respondent Municipality to carry on his t...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Mazoor Mahajan Sangh Vs. D.M. Vin
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1972
Reported in: (1974)15GLR32
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner registered Trade Union challenges In this petition award at Annexure H, dated November 18, 1971, by which respondent No. 1 Labour Court ( Shri D.M. Vin) in terms held that the Reference in question was incompetent. The petitioners have in the alternative challenged the action of respondent No. 2 Panchayat by passing resolution at Annex F, dated July 1, 1969, by which the Sarpanch of respondent No. 2 Panchayat sought to terminate the services of all the concerned 10 clerks, purporting to comply with the order of reinstatement of this Court of the 10 concerned clerks on that day on the ground that such arbitrary and mala fide order must be quashed in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227. Respondent No. 2 Panchayat had 10 clerks working in the Octroi Department. They were served a notice on September 25, 1967, for their discharge with effect from November 1, 1967 on the ground that it was more economical to collect octroi through a contractor a...
Tag this Judgment!Variety Body Builders a Partnership Firm at Baroda Vs. the Union of In ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj256; (1973)0GLR998
1. This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellant our against the respondent-Union of India owning and representing Western Railway. for the recovery of the amount of the Rs.20,000/- in the court of Civil Judge, S. D. Baroda, where it is was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 61 of 1964. The learned trial Judge has partly decreed the plaintiff suit for a amount of Rs. 5,767,76 with proportionate costs,. But since the rest of the claim of the plaintiff is disallowed the plaintiff has approached this Court in this appeal. However, in this appeal the plaintiff has of Rs. 4,419.85. Therefore only the particulars an merits of this claim are required to be considered in this appeal.2. Short facts giving rise to this litigation are that the appellant-plaintiff is a firms which had kept a contract from Western Railway for the supply of one lac cubic ft. of rubbles and 80,000 cubic fit. of metal and loading the same into the wagons at Zazpur Railway Station. The plaintiff carried o...
Tag this Judgment!Ragha Alias Rugnath Mahadev and ors. Vs. Ramji Bava
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Guj86; (1973)GLR577
ORDER1. This revisional application raises an interesting point as regards the interpretation of the provision of Section 54 and order 20, rule 18 of the code of civil procedure 1908 (hereafter referred to as 'the code) Not only that but if as a result those provisions, this court is likely to come to a particular conclusion with regard to courts power in conclusion with regard to decrees for partition generally of properties including agricultural lands the decision possibly is also likely affect to an extent, the common practice hitherto followed in the courts in this state of sending all preliminary decrees for partition of agricultural lands to the collector under the aforesaid provisions. The question as aforesaid had arisen in the following circumstances;2. opposite party Ramiji Bava had filed civil Suit No.103 of 1964 against the petitioners (of whom petitioner No.1 dies during the pendency of this revisional application and whoe heirs have been brought on record ) for partition...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaishankar Damodar Bhatt Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Guj268; (1973)GLR586
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner Doctor had challenged in this petition the order at Annexure A by which his building known as 'Kaushik Building` at Baroda was requisitioned on May 21, 1960. for housing of a State servant and orders at Annexures C and D dated August 10, 1970 and March 29, 1971. by which the petitioner's request for releasing his premises was rejected by the authorities. The petitioner practised as a doctor at Savli and he had intention to settle at Baroda after retirement. He, therefore purchased the suit property in 1958 and rebuilt it. It is now 'Kaushik Building ` which has three storeys. On the ground floor there are two rooms and a kitchen. Same place is on the first floor. The second floor has the same area but there are four rooms . Two rooms on the second floor are with a tenant and the other two rooms are in the possession of the petitioner. The ground floor was with daughter Jaya and her husband and when Jaya vacated, the other daughter Kailas and her husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Engineering Co., Rajkot Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-04-1972
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT268(Guj); [1973]31STC115(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The assessee, Messrs Hind Engineering Co. is a firm carrying on business in an article known as rubber belting. The said article is marketed by it under two different trade names, namely, 'Hind Rubber Belting' and 'Cooper Rubber Belting'. The article in question is a rubber coated belt used as an accessory in the machinery employed for transmission of power. The assessee sold the articles marketed under the aforesaid two trade names under two separate invoices each dated September 30, 1966. The assessee thereafter made two applications each dated December 22/24, 1966 to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, under Section 52(1)(e) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for determination of the question whether any tax was payable in respect of the said two sales and, if so, the rate at which it was payable. The contention of the assessee in the said proceedings was that the articles sold by it were 'Cotton fabrics' within the meaning of Entry ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »