Gujarat Court August 1974 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Vs. Arundhati Balkrishna Trust and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR626(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. Since all these matters are interconnected and the questions arising in each of these matters are identical, we will dispose of these four references by this common judgment. These four references are pertaining to three trusts created by one Mahalaxmi Harivallabhdas Kalidas on the occasion of the marriage of each of her three sons. Her three sons were Jaykrishna, Balkrishna and Ramkrishna. Trust deeds in identical terms with difference only as regards the names of the individuals concerned and with the same scheme were executed settling certain properties for the benefit of the daughter-in-law who was getting married on that particular occasion and for the benefit of the male children of the son who was getting married. The questions which are referred to us in these four references relate to different assessment years, namely assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65, in the case of Arundhati Balkrishna Trust, and also to assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. Reference No. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmedmiya Mohmed Sadik Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-30-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR583
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This petition challenges the vires of Sections 6A, 6B, 6C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as it stood amended by the two amendments by Act 25 of 1966 and Act 36 of 1967. On March 6,1973, the Zonal Officer Shri Malek, raided the residential premises of the petitioner and found that there was undeclared stock of 48 Quintal and 60 K. Gms. of wheat in breach of the relevant provision of the Gujarat Foodgrains (Declaration of Stock) Order, 1972. The said stock was, therefore, seized and removed to the Government godown at Shahibaug. A complaint filed against the petitioner is pending before the City Magistrate. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3, Collector, on March 30, 1973, to confiscate the seized stock. After considering the reply, dated June 23, 1973, submitted by the petitioner and as the petitioner did not remain present even when a notice for personal hearing was served on him, the final...
Tag this Judgment!Padmavati Jaykrishna Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat Iii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1974
Reported in: [1976]105ITR115(Guj)
B.K. Mehta J.1. This reference raises a shorts but interesting question about the powers of the Tribunal under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. Though the question is a short one its application has always posed problems before courts. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this reference are as under : The relevant assessment year was 1963-64 and the valuation date was December 31, 1962. The return was filed by the assessee, who is the applicant before us on 19th (sic) 1963. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of the jewellery on the ground that they were articles meant for personal use of the assessee and, therefore, not liable to be included within the net wealth of the assessee under section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act before its amendment. The assessee has filed a list along with her return where two categories of jewellery were broadly mentioned; one category dealing with ornaments studded with precious stones, and the second category of golden ornaments simpliciter. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Arundhati Balkrishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Iii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR356(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The assessee in both these references is the same individual and the only difference is that in Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1973, we are concerned with the assessment year 1964-65, whereas in Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1973, the assessment year is 1966-67. Question No.1 in Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1973 stand on the same footing and it is common ground that both these questions are governed by the same principle and, therefore, we will dispose of both these references by this common judgment. 2. The assessee, lady, derives income from various sources including income from some trusts. One of the trusts is at Ahmedabad and the other is at Bombay. The Ahmedabad trust is known as Smt. Arundhati Balkrishna Trust, Ahmedabad. In respect of assessment year 1964-65, in the books of account of the Ahmedabad trust, a sum of Rs. 10,880 was debited to interest account being interest paid to Harivallbhdas Kalidas Estate Account (hereinafter referred to as 'the estate accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Chandrashankar and anr. Vs. Bai Basi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Guj1; (1975)GLR1
Divan, C.J.1. The main question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether under O. 41, R. 11. subrule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is open to the appellate Court to dismiss the appeal before it on merits of the case even though the appellant or his pleader may be absent at the time when the appeal is called on for hearing. D. P. Desai, J., sitting singly has taken the view that the Appellate Court has such Power under Order 41. Rule 11 (1) and this appeal has been filed against the order passed by him refusing, to restore the appeal and re-admit it under its original number under the provisions of O. 41. R. 19.2. The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal are as follows, On July 1, 1971 D. P. Desai. J. was sitting singly for admission and at that time, Second appeal No. 218 of 1971 came up for admission before him. On that day he passed the following order:-'Mr. Vin absent. Having gone through the judgments of the Courts below and the memorandum of...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Electricity Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Guj89
Thakkar, J.1. A 10-year old battle is raging around, the question as regards the legality and validity of an order dated April 30, 1964 (Annexure 'H') made by the State Electricity Board constituting a rating committee to examine the charges for the supply of electricity fixed by a licensee (petitioner) under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The rating committee was constituted by respondent No. 1 Gujarat Electricity Board (Board) in exercise of powers under Section 57-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act) on the ground that the Board was satisfied that the licensee (petitioner) had failed to comply with the provisions of Sixth Schedule of the Act. Upon the constitution of the rating committee, the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd., the licensee under the Act, instituted the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the end in view to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order (Annexure 'H') dated April 30, 1964 constituting the rating co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujrat Vs. Kohinoor Flour Mills
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR54(Guj)
B.K. Mehta J.1. A short but interesting question arises about the date as on which penalty under section 273(b) read with section 273(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be levied. The dispute arises out of the following question which has been referred to us for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that Rs. 1,83,000 paid by the assessee on March 26, 1965, should be treated as valid advance tax and should be deducted from 75% of the tax determined for arriving at the basis for imposing the penalty under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Shortly stated the facts leading to this reference are as under : 3. The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66. Before this assessment, the assessee-company was not assessed previously. It was, therefore, liable to file an estimate of advance tax payable under section 212(3) and pay tax accordingly. The estimate was to be filed...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Sharma Construction Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-23-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR603(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this matter, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Tribunal ! 'Whether an appeal lies to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner from any order passed by the Income-tax Officer levying interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Act ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows. The assessee is a firm carrying on business as contractors. The relevant assessment year is assessment 1965-66. The profits were estimated in the regular assessment proceedings for 1965-66 and at the time of passing the order of assessment, the Income-tax Officer directed : 'Charge interest under sections 139 and 217.' The Income-tax Officer proceeded with the assessment on the basis that the firm was an association of persons as the registration had been refused for the preceding year, that is, assessment year 1964-65. The Tribunal ultimately granted registration with effect from July, 1963, for the assessment year 1964-65. ...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Ahmedabad District Co-op ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR733(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessee is a co-operative bank carrying on general banking business. For the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69, the Income-tax Officer while computing chargeable income allowed proportionate interest on investment, viz., Government securities and municipal debentures in accordance with the Board's instructions contained in Circular letter F. No. (108)-62/TPL dated November 3, 1962. According to the said circular, it was enjoined that a fraction of the amount of interest paid by the co-operative bank on total capital borrowed by (or deposited with) it, the fraction being proportional to the total capital invested in securities in relation to the total working capital, should be allowed to be deducted on account of interest on money borrowed for purposes of investment in securities. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was of the opinion that the orders of the Income-tax Officer were prejudicial to the revenue as they where not according to the provisions con...
Tag this Judgment!Becharbhai Lavjibbhai and ors. Vs. Modh Patel Khushalbhai Ravjibhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj98; (1975)0GLR363
1. The plaintiff-respondent and his brother Gulabchand were the owners of fields bearing survey Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 situated within the limits of the village Gota in Sabarkanta district. They sold survey numbers 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 to deceased Becharbhai Lavjibhai and Patel Becharbhai Nathabhai by the sale deed executed on 18-1-1954. A few years after the execution of the above sale deed plaintiff's brother Gulabchand died. According to the sale deed, survey Nos. 11, 13 and 15 are bagayat lands; whereas the rest of the survey numbers comprised of jirayat lands. According to the plaintiff, the purchasers of the aforesaid lands had no right to draw water from the well situated in survey No. 12 which continued to remain in possession of the plaintiff, In spite of the above position, the purchasers installed a pump on the above well for the purpose of drawing water for irrigating their own lands. They also wanted to make construction near the well. The plaintiff, therefore, fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »