Gujarat Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Garden Silk Wvg. Factory Overruled
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR658(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee, a registered firm, is entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years and that it will be deemed to be an allowance in the nature of depreciation in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether the claim of the assessee to carry forward and set off loss of Rs. 3,49,242 against its total income for the assessment year 1968-69, has been rightly rejected ?' 2. Shortly stated the facts leading to this reference are as under : The relevant assessment year was 1968-69. The assessee which is a registered firm filed a return of income showing the total income of Rs. 3,94,483. A provisional assessment under section 141 was made on November 18,1968, on the basis of the income disclosed and tax was paid accordingly. It appears that the Income-t...
Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Company Ltd. Vs. A.S. Manohar, Income-tax Of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR712(Guj)
B.K. Mehta J.1. This is petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Company Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Ahmedabad, challenging the notices and the orders issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the respondent herein seeking to rectify the original orders of assessment in respect of assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64, and also the notice of demand for the year 1963-64, which have been annexed collectively at exhibits E, G and H, respectively, to the petition. Shortly stated the facts leading to this petition are as under : 2. The petitioner-company is a public limited company carrying on its business of manufacture of cloth at Ahmedabad. The petitioner-company was assessed for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64 by the predecessor-in-office of the respondent herein. The assessment order for assessment year 1961-62 was passed on December 26, 1962, for assessment yea...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-23-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR502(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case at the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest on the amount payable by the assessee to M/s. Ansaldo under the contract in the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 was taxable in thee hands of the assessee as the agent of the non-resident company under section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessment years with which we are concerned in the present case are assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65. The assessee is a limited company incorporated in 1956. The business of the assessee is to manufacture cement. In order to import certain plant and machinery, the assessee-company entered into an agreement on December 12,1956, with a foreign company known as Messrs. Ansaldo, S.P.A. (Ansaldo Joint Stock Company) of Genoa, Italy. The agreement provided for various matters including the payment of price for the entire plant and equ...
Rasiklal Shankerlal Soni Vs. Natverlal Shankerlal Uipadhyava and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj178a; (1975)0GLR533
ORDER1. This civil revision application raises an interesting question about the joinder of parties in a suit for specific performance, in which only relief which is claimed is that the original defendant to the suit should execute a document in plaintiff's favour or the same should be executed through the Court. The dispute between the Parties is in respect of the house bearing Panchayat No. 99 situated in village Kathlal. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1971in the Court of the Civil judge, Junior Division, Kapadvanj, alleging that opponent No. 1original defendant No. 1 had mortgaged the suit house to him by a registered document dated October 9,1967 for the amount of Rs. 1,500. On or about April 8, 1969 a second mortgage for Rs. 2,000 was created by the said defendant by a registered document. Defendant No. 1 . was in need of money and he had taken in all Rs. 4051-25 P. as loan from ,him. Defendant No. 1 then entered into an agreement...
Kanji Hirjibhai Gondalia Vs. Jivaraj Dharamshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1976Guj152; (1975)1GLR469
ORDER1. This revision application raises a short but interesting question. The pertinent facts are that the suit residential premises situated on Hathikhana Road, Rajkot belong to Rajkot Halari Vanand Community. The opponent is a tenant of the suit premises. Kanji Hirjibhai Gondaliya, as a manager of Halari Vanand Community filed Civil Suit No. 152 of 19,70 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Rajkot for possession of the suit premises as well arrrears of rent. The suit for possession was filed on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant contested the suit and raised a plea that the notice for eviction was not valid. The learned trial Judge raised issue No. 1 which is as under:'Whether the suit notice is valid and legal ?'The learned trial Judge tried this tssue as preliminary issue since in his opinion a part of the suit could be disposed of by a finding on that issue. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the notice of eviction was...
Umarfaruk Mohmedsafi and anr. Vs. the State of Gujarat.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-18-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR994
A.N. Surti, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate, 2nd Court Ahmedabad convicting the appellant-accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 379, 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has sentenced the appellant-accused to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days. The charge which was levelled against the present accused appears at page 15 of the record and proceedings. It was alleged that appellants Nos. 1 & 2 (original accused Nos. 1 & 2) along with six other persons on or about the 4th day of October, 1972 at Sabarmati committed theft of coal which is the property of Railway Administration valued at Rs. 200/-and abetted each other and that thereby they had committed an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. At the very out-set I may state that the learned Magistrate has acquitted the original accused N...
Murtujakhan Joravarkhan Babi Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Guj182; (1975)0GLR806
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of final plot No. 51 of Town Planning Scheme No. IV (Varied) of Maninagar (Manipur) at Ahmedabad. The said plot admeasures about 2662 sq, yds. In the year 1924 the Notified Area Committee of Kankaria was the local authority for the Maninagar area within the meaning of Section 9 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act). The Notified Area Committee declared its intention to frame a Town Planning Scheme in the year 1924 and a draft planning scheme was accordingly Prepared in due course in the said draft scheme the land of the petitioner was reserved for Post Office and it was directed that the land shall remain vacant in Possession of the owner for fifteen years and that no super structure shall be erected thereon during the said period. The Final Town Planning Scheme No. IV (Manipur) was thereafter duly prepared and by a notification dated April 27, 1931 sanction was accorded to the same with effect from J...
Union of India, New Delhi Vs. Jyoti Limited, Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-12-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT238(Guj)
J.M. Sheth, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda, dated 16th February, 1968, in Special Suit No. 25 of 1967, filed by respondent against the appellant-Union of India. 2. The suit was for a declaration that the action of the defendant (appellant) in refusing to allow the plaintiff - respondent to clear the electric motors. Without payment of excise duty on the amount of trade discount is illegal, ultra vires, malafide and outside their powers and jurisdiction, and for a declaration that the action of the appellant-defendant in levying and charging excise duty on the amount of trade discount is illegal, unauthorised and in contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for a permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and its officers and servants from collecting excise duty from the plaintiff-respondent on the amount of t...
Dolatsing Prabhatsing Rana Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)16GLR774
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition to compel the respondent Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority,' to make a reference to this Court under Section 54(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, as to the substantial question of law which had arisen in the context of the partition deed of the petitioner. The Collector by the order, dated January 1, 1971, held that entry 46(b) was not applicable and, therefore, on the Mamlatdar's report of valuation of Rs. 2100/- per acre, the proper stamp duty should have been paid and he accordingly imposed penalty along with the said deficit. The petitioner approached the respondent against this order of the Collector under Section 39(1) of the Act, and requested him to make a reference of the substantial question of law to the High Court by the application, dated March 27, 1971. The respondent Authority, however, without making any reference decided this revision application under Section 53(1) of the Ac...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Desai Bros.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-05-1974
Reported in: [1977]108ITR14(Guj)
B.K. Mehta J.1. The assessee herein is a registered firm which carries on business of bidi manufacturing. During the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee-firm claimed an expenditure of Rs. 9,300 incurred for replacing a petrol engine by a diesel engine in the assessee's truck which was being used in its business. The assessee claimed the said replacement cost of Rs. 9,300 as expenses for current repairs and in support of its claim reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Mysore High Court in Hanuman Motor Service v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1967]66ITR88(KAR) . The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim of the assessee, as in his opinion the decision of the Mysore High Court was not applicable to the facts before him as the assessee was carrying on business of bidi manufacturing while the assessee before the Mysore High Court in Hanuman Motor Service v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1967]66ITR88(KAR) was carrying on business of bus transport. The Income-tax offic...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »