Gujarat Court November 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.
Sakarlal Balabhai Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-04-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR97(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners herein by these two petitions challenge the constitutional validity of sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the legality of the notices dated 29th March, 1972, issued by respondent No. 1 herein under section 148 of the said Act for reopening the assessments for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, as he had reason to believe that income of the petitioners chargeable to tax for the said years had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the said Act. In order to appreciate the rival contentions in proper perspective, a few facts need be stated. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the son and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are grandsons of one Balabhai Damodar who died on 31st December, 1957, in jointness with his son, petitioner No. 1, and two grandsons - petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 - and other great-grandsons. The deceased Balabhai had separate properties as well as joint family properties. The deceased had executed a will dated 6th October, 19...
Arundhati Balkrishna and ors. Vs. G.M. Singhvi, Income-tax Officer, Gr ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR763(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The first petitioner herein is an individual having a life interest in certain trusts. Petitioners 2A, 2B and 2C are the trustees of those trusts and the question arises regarding the assessment of the beneficiary, the first petitioner herein, for the purposes of wealth-tax and also the assessment of the trustees of the same trusts in which the first petitioner has a lief interest. 2. The short facts leading to this case may not be stated. The assessment years under consideration are assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65. By a deed of settlement dated September 7, 1945, the father of the first petitioner settled certain shares of Indian companies upon trust for the benefit of the first petitioner and other beneficiaries. By another deed of settlement dated October 12, 1945, the father of the first petitioner settled shares of Uganda Cotton Company Ltd. upon trust for the benefit of the first petitioner and other beneficiaries. All the terms of the two deeds of settlement so...
Chhaganlal Mansukhlal and anr. Vs. the Agricultural Produce Market Com ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR916
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners herein have by this petition challenged the vires of the Rules 48 and 54 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed by the State Government under Section 59 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners are dealing in agricultural produce at Dohad, district Panchmahals, and are holding 'A' class licence granted by the respondent No. 1, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee at Dohad established under Section 9 of the Act and which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'.3. The case of the petitioners is that they are interested in the business of buying and selling of agricultural produce on a large scale and hence they have to purchase goods from the places situated either outside the market area established for the purpose of the Act or from outside the State of Gujarat. After purchasing goods in this manner they sell ...
Rasulkhanji Sardar Mahomad Khanji Vs. H.P. Rathod, 3rd Spl. Land Acqui ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-01-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR911
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner in this petition challenges the orders of respondent No. 1 Special Land Acquisition Officer, dated June 16, 1971, by which he refused to make this reference under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the ground that the application of the petitioner claimant was time-barred and he also refused to condone the delay.2. The award was, in the present case, made on January 5, 1971, and it was not pronounced in the presence of the parties and no date of its pronouncement had been fixed. The alleged notice under Section 12(2) was served on January 13, 1971, merely stating the true area and the total compensation amount of Rs. 1865.73 P., without any grounds for making that award. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for a certified copy of that award on January 22, 1971, which was supplied only on March 26, 1971. The application for reference was made on April 16, 1971. The petitioner's case is that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›