Gujarat Court December 1973 Judgments
Vrajlal Chhaganlal Vs. B.A. Shariff, Commissioner of Income-tax, and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR217(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. The same point of law arises in each of these special civil applications. The facts are also similar in each case and it will be convenient to dispose of the six special civil applications by this common judgment and that is why we deliver a common judgment in these matters. In order to indicate how the point of law arises, we will take up the facts in Special Civil Application No. 403 of 1972. The petitioner in this special civil application and each of the petitioners in the remaining petitions have been assessed as an individual under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. Each of the petitioners is a coparcener of a Hindu undivided family and he has his own Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and his children. Each of the petitioners in this group of special civil applications has thrown into the hotchpot of one or the other of the Hindu undivided family his self-acquired properties in the relevant assessment year and each of them purports to have thrown his self...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat I Vs. Dilharshankar C. Bhachech
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR56(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This reference raises the question regarding exemption from estate duty under section 29 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, which contemplates exemption from duty in cases where the estate duty has been paid on settled property on the death of one of the parties to a marriage. 2. Following are the relevant brief facts of this reference. The respondent is the accountable person and he is related to the deceased, Shri Kamlashanker Gopalshanker Bhachech, as one of his grandsons. Deceased, Kamlashanker, died on 25th October, 1964. He had a wife named Mahendraba Kamlashanker Bhachech. The deceased and his wife each possessed certain properties which were of their individual ownership. They were also jointly possessed of certain properties one of which is a bungalow known as 'Dilhar Dwar' situated in Ellisbridge are of Ahmedabad. The dispute in this reference is with regard to estate duty leviable on 1/2 share of the wife of the deceased, Kamlashanker Bhachech, in this bungalow ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Chamnaji Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ614; (1974)15GLR852
D.P. Desai, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is: Whether the report of a Public Analyst under Section 13 of the Prevention of Pood Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which is not in the form No. III prescribed by Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), is admissible in evidence under Section 13(5) of 'the Act without examining the Public Analyst? Together with this question, the question which may collaterally arise has also been posed in this proceeding. It is whether in a case where the report is not in the prescribed form as stated above is it open for the prosecution to examine the Public Analyst and prove the facts stated in the report?2. The matter has come up before (us on a difference of opinion on the first question which arose as a result of our learned brother Surti. J. having found himself unable to see eye to eye with the interpretation of Section 13(5) of the Act ny our lear...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Dhanji Ved and anr. Vs. N. Gopalswami, Collector and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: (1975)16GLR394
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 was the president of Mandavi Municipality and petitioner No. 2 was the vice-president thereof. They were elected to their respective offices for the term expiring on 30th June 1974. On 18th June 1973 they tendered resignations of their respective offices wherein they stated that they would be effective from 1st July 1973. On 26th June 1973, resignation of petitioner No. 1 as the president of the municipality was accepted by the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The resignation of petitioner No. 2 as the Vice-president of the municipality was accepted by the Municipality on 30th June 1973 under Sub-section (2) of Section 35. Acceptance of resignation of petitioner No. 1 was not notified in the official gazette as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 35.2. On 25th July 1973, the two petitioners raised a dispute by separate applications which they made to the Collector of Kutch in which they stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Morvi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1973
Reported in: [1976]105ITR230(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. Some questions of law regarding some of the sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', are involved in these three petitions and, therefore, we will dispose of the three special civil applications by this common judgment. The petitioner is Special Civil Application No. 294 of 1972 is a partnership firm which has been registered with the income-tax authorities in accordances with the provision of the Act. The petitioners in Special Civil Applications No. 655 of 1972 and 1112 of 1972 are partners of the said firm and they have challenged the orders of the respondents' levying of penal interest under the provisions of section 139(1) and section 139(4). The firsts respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Morvi, having jurisdiction over these three petitioners and the second respondent is the Additional Commissioner of Incomes-tax, Gujarat III, who has jurisdiction over the cases of the three petitioners. 2. The short facts giving rise to these th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Gujarat Vs. Padmaben Hiralal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR101(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. The Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following question for our opinion in this reference : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the previous year should be the financial year for assessing the gifts made on February 2, 1963, and the assessment year should be 1963-64 ?' 2. The above question arises from the following set of facts. The assessee is found to have made gifts of Rs. 40,000 to Shri Hiralal Manilal and Rs. 25,000 to Smt.Savitaben Hiralal on February 2, 1963. She filed a voluntary return for these gifts under the Gift-tax Act showing the assessment year as 1964-65 and the previous year as S.Y. 2019 which commenced on October 29,1962, and ended on October 17,1963. On the basis of this return, the Gift-tax Officer carried out the assessment on the amount of Rs. 65,000. 3. The assessee contended before the Gift-tax Officer that the year of assessment for both the gifts should be the year 1963-64 and not 1964-65 . She, however, fa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Shree Jari Merchants Associ ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: [1977]106ITR542(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question which is principally involved in this references is whether the annual subscriptions received by the assessee, who is a mercantile association working at Surat, from its members is liable to be included in its income. This question arises in the following manner. 2. The respondent-assessee is an association known as Shree Jari Merchants Associations, Surat. It was established in the year 1944, and it is an admitted position that it is registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal in its order has stated that the respondent-associations is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but that statement is admittedly wrong. 3. The assessment years with which we are concerned in this reference are 1962-63 to 1964-65. For these years the respondent-assessee filed returns accompanied by statements showings how its business income was worked out. While returning its income, th...
Tag this Judgment!Khatana Sankalabhai Dosabhai Vs. Jesingbhai Devram Thakkar and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1973
Reported in: (1975)16GLR379
S.H. Sheth, J.1. On 1st March 1968 the petitioner was elected President of Kankrej Taluka Panchayat in Banaskantha District. The respondent No. 1 was his rival candidate. The petitioner got 26 votes and the respondent No. 1 got 25 votes. The petitioner was, therefore, elected by majority of one vote.2. The respondent No. 2 had lodged information with police on 7th March 1968 that he had been abducted by the petitioner and others and that, therefore, he could not remain present at the time of voting at that election. The police found that the complaint was false and applied to the Magistrate for 'B' Summary. The Magistrate rejected the application for 'B' Summary and granted 'A' Summary. The respondent No. 2 had also filed a private complaint about it. On 17th March 1969 the Magistrate dismissed it. While doing so he observed that abduction had taken place but it was not proved who had dons it.3. Meanwhile the respondents No. 1 and 2 made an application to the District Development Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR639(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioners in each of these two special civil applications are the same, namely, a limited-company, carrying on business of manufacturing textile cloth in Ahmedabad. The petitioners, namely, the Union of India and A. N. Rao, Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle III, are respondents in both these special civil applications. The two special civil applications refer to separate notices issued by the second respondent in each of these special civil application under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen assessments for different years and the grounds on which the assessments are sought to be re-opened are identical. The petitioners challenge these notices under section 148 of the Act of 1961 seeking to re-open assessments under section 147. Special Civil Application No. 517 of 1971 refers to notices to re-open assessments for assessments years 1962-63 and 1963-64 whereas notices which are challenged in Special Civil Application No. 218...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Jayantilal Amratlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-13-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR105(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, jewellery held by the Hindu undivided family was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction admissible is in respect of tax payable pursuant to the relevant returns filed by the assessee or whether such deductions is admissible in respect of such tax as finally determined on assessments ?' The above question have been referred to us in the following circumstances; 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the relevant assessment years for the purpose of this reference are 1962-63 to 1964-65. The assessee claimed before the Wealth-tax Officer that the value of jewellery and ornaments amounting to Rs. 1,85,216 was exempt under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act on the ground that they were meant for personal use ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »