Gujarat Court September 1973 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.
Rajnagar Vaktapur Ginning, Pressing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (In Liq ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-13-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR264(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. As these two matters involve inter-dependent questions, it would be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment and, therefore, we intend to deliver a common judgment in these two matters. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 103 of 72, the petitioner-company is a private limited company having its registered office in Manekchowk, Ahmedabad. At present it is under liquidation and one Bharatkumar Chandulal Shah has been appointed its liquidator. In the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant accounting year of which was ending on August 31, 1967, the company was resolved to be taken into voluntary liquidation. It appears that some of its assets were sold on June 15, 1967. The assets so disposed of were building and machinery, which were purchased by the petitioner-company before January 1, 1954. It is an admitted position that the petitioner-company had obtained depreciation on the said assets. Before the Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Ward E, Ahmedabad, in the cour...
Sales Tax Officer, Petlad Vs. Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1973
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas25(Guj)
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by judge's summons is preferred by the Sales Tax Officer, Petlad, against the decision of the official liquidator of RAjratna Naranbhai Mills CO. LTd. (in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as the company, dated 29th August 1972, rejecting a part of the claim in the amount of Rs. 28,80,1.77 being the amount of penalty included in the whole claim of Rs. 70,945.60 as the debt inadmissible for payment by the official liquidator in winding up, and refusing to grant priority in payment as envisaged by section 530(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The applicant has prayed that the court should give a direction directing the liquidator to grant priority in payment of Rs. 1,064.44 as sales tax due and payable under the BOmbay Sales TAx Act and Rs. 11,216.50 being sales tax due and payable under the Central Sales TAx Act and the balance of the claim admitted by the liquidator plus the claim rejected by the liquidator as ordinary debt ranking pari pasu with other ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Nanalal Tribhovandas and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR734(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. Though these two references are separate, identical questions have been referred in these two references by the Tribunal to us and they are interconnected in the sense that the decision in Reference No. 15 of 1971 will depend upon the decision in Reference No. 8 of 1971. We will, therefore, dispose of both these references by this common judgment. 2. The assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1971 at the relevant time was a Hindu undivided family of which Tribhovandas Harkishandas was the karta. The relevant assessment years were 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48. The business of the assessee consisted of running oil mills at Kharsalia and Dohad. On February 4, 1948, the Income-tax Officer concerned completed the assessment for the year 1945-46 and he found that the total income of the assessee for that particular assessment year was Rs. 20,100. Assessments for the two years 1946-47 and 1947-48 were made on January 28, 1951. The Income-tax Officer found that for the year 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1973
Reported in: [1976]104ITR510(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This reference raise a short but an interesting question as to the scope and width of clause (5) of rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, regarding computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking or a hotel for purposes of section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question posed by the Tribunal for our opinion in as under : 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the figure arrived at by computation under rule 19(5) was to be added to the figure arrived at by computation under rule 19(1) for determining the average capital employed in the assessee's undertaking ?' 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions for and against the point involved in this question, a few facts which have led to this reference need be stated. 3. The relevant assessment year is 1964-65. Under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the respondent-assessee was entiled to exemption in respect of its newly established industrial undertaking. In the course of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Gujarat Textile Co. Pvt. L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR514(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 8,750 paid by the assessee to M/s. Pari Bechardas Ambaidas should be excluded for the purpose of finding out the difference between the assessed income and the returned income under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961 ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question in the proper perspective, a few facts need be stated : The assessee is a private limited company dealing in cloth, cotton, photographic materials, electrical goods and glassware. The relevant assessment year is 1964-65. The assessee-firm returned an income of Rs. 29, 229 for the relevant assessment year. However, it was finally assessed on a total income of Rs. 41,050. As the Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the case of the assessee-firm would come within the mischief of the Explanation to section 27...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron and Steel Reg ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1973
Reported in: (1974)GLR1; [1975]99ITR567(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this reference the following question has been referred to the High Court by the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the respondent was entitled to claim the deduction of Rs. 15,420 incurred by it as and by way of legal expenses ?'The assessee in this particular case is a private limited company and the relevant assessment year is 1965-66. The assessee-company deals in iron and steel materials in accordance with the provisions of the Iron & Steel Control Order. The assessee as a legal person was a partner in a firm known as M/s. Kashiparekh Brothers (Scrap Department). The assessee was represented in that partnership firm by its managing director, one Premchand Gokaldas. There was a first information report to the police on September 28, 1963, against the firm of M/s. Kashiparekh Brothers and also against its two partners, Sarabhai Chhotalal and Gautam Sarabhai. Th...
Vasant Trading Corporation and anr. Vs. Dhamanvala Arvind Silk Mills.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR869
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Whether a party has a right to claim issuance of a commission to examine a witness residing beyond the prescribed limit of 300 miles from the court house (See Order 16 Rule 19 of Code of Civil Procedure) under Order 26 Rule 4 of the Code, is the question which has been referred to a Division Bench by D.P. Desai J. by his order under reference.2. It appears to have been argued before the learned Judge that Dhanbal Burjorji Cooper v. Bablibai Shahpurji Sorabji 36, Bombay Law Reporter, 272 was an authority in support of the proposition that no party had a right to claim issuance of a commission even in a case where witnesses were residing at a place 300 miles from the court-house. The learned Judge therefore considered it desirable to have the question resolved by a larger Bench.3. D.P. Desai J. himself was of the view that except under certain circumstances, a party had a right to claim issuance of a commission as a matter of course in a case where witnesses were resid...
Maneklal Bhagwandas Vs. N.N. Sheth, Income-tax Officer, Surat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR287(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. The petitioner herein is a resident of Surat and the respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Ward-C, Surat Circle, Surat. The petitioner is carrying on business of manufacturing cloth and sale of yarn and this business is being carried on at Surat. It is the petitioner's case that he had business and social relations with one Ratilal Desai of Bombay. On or about July 1, 1969, the petitioner had gone to Bombay and had met Ratilal Desai. After some preliminary negotiations, Ratilal Desai suggested to the petitioner that he wanted to invest a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 this being the amount which he had realised from the sale of an ice factory at Hyderabad. Ratilal Desai suggested that he wanted to invest this amount in some business which the petitioner might suggest. The petitioner informed Ratilal Desai that there was a considerable scope for investment of funds in cloth business in Surat and, therefore, Ratilal Desai should invest the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in the petitio...
Thakorlal Chunilal Barrister Vs. Ishwarlal Uttamram and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: (1974)15GLR766
D.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner Thakorlal Chunilal Barrister was the original defendant and opponents were the original plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1392 of 1967 in the Court of Third Joint cvti Judge (Junior Division) at Surat against the defendant tenant for recovering possession of the suit premises on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiffs require the same reasonally and bona fide for their own use and occupation and secondly that the defendant tenant is in arrears for more than six months and is not shown to be ready and willing to pay the rent. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the standard rent in respect of the suit premises has been fixed between the parties in an earlier proceeding and therefore, there cannot be any dispute about the standard rent. The defendant contested the suit inter alia contending that there was a dispute about standard rent and that the suit must fail on account of nonjoinder of necessary parties. It was also contend...
Shrenik Kasturbhai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Ii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR326(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. In these six references the facts of each case and the questions referred to us for our opinion are identical and we, therefore, intend to dispose of these references by this common judgment. 2. In these references, though the relevant assessment years are different they are all within the period from the assessment years 1960-61 to 1963-64. It appears that in the assessment of the respective respondents-assessees under the Wealth-tax Act for the respective assessment years, a claim was made on behalf of the assessees that the valuation of certain pieces of their land should not be included in the computation of the net wealth, they being agricultural land. That claim having been rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer, the assessees went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 23 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the claim and allowed the appeal. The Wealth-tax Officer, therefore, took the matters in further a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »