Gujarat Court October 1974 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.
Kantilal Dahyabhai Shah K.D. Dasadia Vs. Tej Prakash, Tax Recovery Off ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR638
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged certain proceedings taken against him by the Tax Recovery Officer No. 1, the first respondent herein, under Rule 14 of the Second Schedule, Part 1, to the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner says that he is a citizen of India and claims protection of the fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner and one Shambhukumar Keshavlal Patel were working as organizers of a proposed Co-operative Housing Society called Akhandanand Co-operative Housing Society and the two organizers took part in the auction sale of a vacant plot of land bearing Survey No. 348 admeasuring 8712 square yards situated on the outskirts of Nava Wadaj Village, Ahmedabad City. This Survey Number was said to belong to one Laxmichand Ambaram Gandhi In pursuance of certain tax liabilities of Laxmichand Ambaram Gandhi the Tax Recovery Officer on behalf of the Income-tax Department of the Government of India put up Survey No. 348 for sale and what was so...
Laxmi Weaving Factory and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1974
Reported in: [1979]116ITR81(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. Since the question involved in both these references is the same question though arising in different sets of circumstances, we will dispose of both these references by this common judgment. The assessee concerned in each of these references was originally a partnership firm and the question is as to what is to happen to development rebate allowed to the partnership firm during its subsistence after the partnership firm is dissolved and the surplus assets of the partnership are distributed amongst the partners. The revenue contends that on the distribution taking place, the development rebate granted to the firm can be withdrawn and the necessary rectification proceedings either under s. 155(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, or s. 35(11) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, can be adopted, whereas the assessee in each of these cases contends that it cannot be withdrawn in this manner. 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1973, the following question has been referred to us by the Tribuna...
Kanchanlal Trikamlal Patel Vs. Shyamal Ghosh, Dist. Magistrate and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR675
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner herein who is the father of detenu Sevantilal Kanchanlal Patel challenges by this petition the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, respondent No. 1 herein, on September 23, 1974 detaining Sevantilal Kanchanlal Patel of Surat with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods under Section 3(1)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order has been passed in the following circumstances:The petitioner, his son Sevantilal who happens to be the detenu and four other persons carry on the business of ANGADIA (Personal Messenger Service) in the name and style of Somabhai Kanchanlal & Company which is a registered partnership firm. It is the case of the petitioner that the firm is carrying on its business of ANGADIA for the last about 30 years having its main office at Surat and branch offices at 13 places, inter alia, at Bombay, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Rajkot, Baroda and Broach. The detenu being a partner of the said firm atten...
Laxmi Weaving Factory and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-24-1974
Reported in: [1979]116ITR80(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - Since the question involved in both these references is the same question though arising in different sets of circumstances, we will dispose of both these references by this common judgment. The assessee concerned in each of these references was originally a partnership firm and the question is as to what is to happen to development rebate allowed to the partnership firm during its subsistence after the partnership firm is dissolved and the surplus assets of the partnership are distributed amongst the partners. The revenue contends that on the distribution taking place, the development rebate granted to the firm can be withdrawn and the necessary rectification proceedings either under s. 155(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961, or s. 35(11) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, can be adopted, whereas the assessee in each of these cases contends that it cannot be withdrawn in this manner.In Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1973, the following question has been referred to us by the Tribunal at ...
Babubhai Karirnbhai Jasani and anr. Vs. Vora Daudji Amji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Guj111; (1975)1GLR877
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question involved in both these appeals is whether the want of notice to judgment-debtor under sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 C. P. Code amounts to 'material irregularity in publishing or conducting sale' within the meaning of Rule 90 Order 21 C. P. Code or whether it amounts to a jurisdictional error or any illegality vitiating the subsequent sale proceedings as void ab initio.2.. Short facts of the case are that the appellant Babubhai Harilal Patni of Appeal No. 190/71 had filed a suit against the Respondent for recovery of mortgage amount. That suit ended in a preliminary decree against the respondent on 17-3-1959. Final decree was thereafter passed on 3rd March 1967 for sale of their mortgaged property. Pursuant to this final decree the said appellant filed Darkhast No. 24/67 in the Court of Civil judge (Jr. Division) at Lathi on 4th May 1967 for realising the amount of Rs. 7969-57 by selling the mortgaged property. On that Darkhast application the Executi...
Abdul Rehman Haji Miya Vs. V.P. Minocha, Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR821(Guj)
Divan C.J.1. The petitioner in this case was, prior to its dissolution on August 31, 1963, a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Though the firm has been dissolved with effect from August 31, 1963, as the subject-matter of the writ petition is pending, the said firm is deemed to continue in connection with that subject-matter. All the partners of the petitioner-firm are citizens of India having their domicile in India. The business of the petitioner-firm was to manufacture hosiery goods and sell the same. In the financial years 1959-60 and 1960-61, corresponding to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the petitioner-firm had purchased some new machinery for purpose of its business. The Income-tax Officer, while assessing the petitioner-firm for those assessment years, had allowed development rebate to the extent of Rs. 4,006 for assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 7,382 for assessment year 1961-62. This was done under the provisions of secti...
The President Vs. Bai Champa D/O Sheth Bhatubhai Lallubhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-14-1974
Reported in: (1976)17GLR44
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question which is involved in this appeal is whether putting up of an obstruction on a piece of land which is required to be kept open by a decree of permanent injunction granted by a Civil Court, amounts to a continuing wrong as contemplated by Section 23 of the limitation Act, 1908 or not.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant of this appeal is the Kalol District Municipality against whom the present respondents have obtained a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from alienating 50 feet of public street land situate near Railway Station at Kalol in Mehsana District and directing it to keep the said land open permanently for public road. The said decree was obtained by the respondents in suit No. 61 of 1947-48 from the court of the Civil Judge at Kalol. The decree was passed on 18-4-50. It is found that thereafter several cabins were erected on the disputed land, with the result that the respondents gave a darkhast for their remova...
Suketu Jayantilal Shah Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR439(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. One JAYANTILAL Shah, who happened to be the father of the accountable person herein, expired in 1944. He died in jointness with his wife, Subhadra, two sons and an unmarried daughter. The said joint family owned certain shares, loans, jewellery and immovable properties including agricultural lands. Under section 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, on the demise of the said Jayantilal Shah, his widow, Subhadra, acquired the same interest in the joint family properties which her husband had at the time of his demise. After the death of Jayantilal Shah, his widow, Subhadra, and their two sons and one unmarried daughter continued in jointness. The widow, Subhadra, died on November 14, 1959, leaving behind her, her two sons and one unmarried daughter who along with her constituted a joint Hindu family as stated above. It is common grounds that Subhadra has not claimed partition of the joint family properties before her death not there was any partition o...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Gujarat Vs. Executors and Trustees of the Es ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR447(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal based on the ratio of the case decided by the House of Lords in Lynall v. Inland Revenue Commissioner and basing the valuation of the sale shares of Bakubhai and Ambalal Ltd. London, in its balance-sheet as at March 31, 1963, instead of March 31, 1964, is bad in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the valuation of the shares as returned by the assessee and deleting Rs. 27,360 added by the Gift-tax Officer under section 15 (3) of the Act ?' 2. The Tribunal has also referred the following question to us at the instance of the assessee, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the valuation of shares in question should ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Vs. Shirinbanoo
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-09-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR735(Guj)
B.K. Mehta J.1. A short but interesting problem which has been posed before us is : what is the valuation of encumbered urban asset for purposes of levy of additional wealth-tax under Paragraph C of the Schedule to the wealth-tax Act. The problem arises in the following circumstances : The relevant assessment years are 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee, Smt. Shirinbanoo, Sherali, was the owner of immovable property situated at Carmichael Road, Bombay, known as 'Rushila building'. The building is situated on a leasehold land with leasehold rights for a period of 999 years commencing from October 1, 1954. The ground rent for the land is Rs. 15, 600 per annum. The plot of land over which this building is constructed admeasures about 1,400 sq. metres. The building has six floors with a ground floor which is being used as a basement while the remaining five floors have two residential flats on each floor. The assessee disclosed the valuation of the building at Rs. 9,00,000 (Rupees nine lakh...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »