Gujarat Court December 1975 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Mukur Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-18-1975
Reported in: [1978]111ITR312(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question involved in this reference is with regard to the extent of the revisional powers of the Commissioner acting under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts which give rise to this reference can be shortly stated as under. The respondent-assessee was a registered partnership firm consisting of two partners at the relevant time. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference is 1965-66. The assessee's income was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for this year on 21st March, 1970, at Rs. 1,03,840. Subsequently, on 24th February, 1972, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax found on the facts before him that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer at the time of assessing the assessee's income was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the revenue. He, therefore, issued a show-cause notice contemplated by section 263 of the Act for the purpose of giving an opportunity t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Steel Cast Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-17-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR683(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinio : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the claim of the assessee under section 80J which was not made before the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. In our opinion, in order to bring out the real controversy in the matter and in order to see that the question is correctly related to the facts of the case, the question should be reframed and when reframed, the question will read as follow : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to consider the claim of the assessee under section 80J which was not made either before the Income-tax Officer or before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 3. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1967-68. The ...
Laxmikant and anr. Vs. Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamp ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Guj158; (1976)GLR408
T.U. Mehta, J.1. In both of these References the question involved is as to what is the proper Article of the First Schedlue of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 applicable to the case wherein a person throws his moveable property in the family hotch-potch and converts it from a separate property into a joint family property.2. The point involved in both the References is the same and, therefore, we shall refer only to the facts relating to Reference No. 1/71. The facts of this Reference are that one Laxmikant alias Arvindbhai Chandulal Parikh, possessed the cash amount of Rs. 20,000/-. He threw this amount in the Common stock of the family consisting of himself, his wife and three minor sons by making a declaration in writing as found at Ann. 'B'. This declaration was made in a document bearing a stamp of Rs. 3/-. When it was presented for registration, the Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State found that it as chargeable with stamp duty of Rs. 800/- under Art. 55 (...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Guj158; (1977)GLR83(GJ)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the questions which have been referred to us for our opinion.2. The first respondent is a partner in one partnership firm carrying on 'business under the name and style of Hemant Land Corporation. In lieu of the land bearing, S. Nos. 24, 27/2 and 28/1/2 situated within the revenue limits of village Paldi in Ahmedabad city, final plots Nos. 34, 35 and 36 sub-plots Nos. 28, 29 and 40 were allotted to the executers and trustees of the will of one Chhotalal Dahyalal Patel. The aforesaid sub-plots Nos. 28, 29 and 40 were agreed to be sold by the said executors and trustees to the aforesaid Hemant Land Corporation. The Hemant Land Corporation has agreed to sell the said plots to respondent No. 2 which is a Co-operative Housing Society. Respondent No. I accordingly presented eight documents in the nature of sale of Banakhat rights on May 2, 1958 in favour of respondent No. 2 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad. The Sub...
Narandas Hargovind Das and ors. Vs. Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-16-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR977
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The same question has been referred to us in both these matters and the question is-Whether the provision of a statute by which a right of appeal is conferred on a higher authority subject to the condition that the appeal shall not lie unless the assessee first pays the tax demanded by the authority of the first instance is violative of Article 14 of the constitution on the ground that it discriminates between those who pay the tax demanded and those who do not.At the time when these two matters were referred to the mil bench, the position was not clarified so far as the Supreme Court is concerned and so far as this High Court was concerned, the matter rested with the decision of this High Court in Anant Mills v. State of Gujarat : (1973)14GLR826 . The Division Bench before which Special Civil Application No. 1106 of 1970 came up for hearing and final disposal, by its order dated July 30 1973 referred the matter to a larger bench because it was unable to agree with t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Bombay Mineral Supply Co. (P.) ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1975
Reported in: [1978]112ITR577(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question which is involved in this reference is whether the payment by way of advance or loan by a closely-held company to its shareholder amounting to a 'deemed' dividend within the meaning of section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is a 'distribution of dividend' within the meaning of section 23A thereof, so as to save the said company from the super-tax liability under it. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a private limited company governed by the provisions of section 23A of the Act of 1922. We are concerned with the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. The total income for these three years of this company after the decision given by the Tribunal with regard to these assessment years was respectively Rs. 96,026, Rs. 2,41,990 and Rs. 2,66,209. After deducting tax from its income, the balance of distributable profits for these years was respectively Rs. 46,573, Rs. 1,17,365 and Rs. 1,46,415. It is an admitted positio...
Dudhiben Dharamshi and ors. Vs. New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd., Bhavnag ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1975
Reported in: 1976ACJ136; [1977(34)FLR363]; (1977)IILLJ194Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The learned single Judge having upheld the Commissioner's order dismissing the claim of compensation by the dependents of the deceased workman in question, they have come in this appeal. There is no dispute that the deceased was an employee of the respondent mill company getting Rs. 175 per month, and that the compensation amount, if the claim was maintainable, would be of Rs. 7,000. The findings of fact which have been arrived at by the learned single Judge are that this employee who belonged to the second shift the mill working at 3-30 p.m. had in the day in question, i.e., April 4, 1966, started from his house to go to the mill on that afternoon. The mill had devised a rule in order to see that the second shift start at 3-30 p.m., that the workers should be inside the mill compound five minutes before the shift commenced. The learned Judge believed the presence of the witness Bhikha Mohan, Ext. 26, a co-worker near the gate of the mill about the time when this decea...
M.F. Paniker Vs. Piraji Moraji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Guj190; (1976)0GLR312
Divan, C.J.1. The Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Ahmedabad, has made this Reference as he formed the opinion that Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is invalid and under the relevant Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Reference has been made. The learned Magistrate has considered Entry 23 of the Second List, that is, the State List, of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and also Entry 54 of List I of the same Schedule and he has observed that under Entry 54, Parliament can assume power to make laws with respect to regulation of mines and mineral development, only when Parliament declares by law that such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest. Section 2 of the said Act reads -'It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minera...
Smt. Pushpaben Kantilal Shah Vs. K.N. Zutshi and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-15-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1419
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In these two matters where before the Division Bench consisting of J. B. Mehta and P. D. Desai JJ. certain common questions of law regarding the validity and extent of operation of Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act) arose, the Division Bench felt that fundamental questions of widest amplitude had been raised in order to challenge the vires of Section 5-A and so the Division Bench decided that in view of the importance of the matter, the following two questions should be referred to a larger Bench.(1) Whether Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is retroactive so as to apply to orders of detention passed on or before July 1, 1975?(2) If so, whether it is ultra vires, either because it impinges upon the power of judicial review and impairs the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat I Vs. Gujarat State Warehousing Co ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-08-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR1(Guj)
T.U. Mehta, J.1. An intricate question regarding the priorities in adjustment as between the current depreciation, carried forward depreciation and carried forward losses against the profits and gains of business for the current year arises in this reference in view of the provisions contained in sections 32(2) and 72(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Short facts of the case, which form the background in which this question arises for our consideration, can be stated as under. The respondent-assessee is a warehousing corporation established under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1967-68 and 1968-69. For the assessment year 1967-68, the respondent-assessee made the business profit of Rs. 2,18,488. It is an admitted position that before this assessment year 1967-68, the respondent-assessee had suffered business losses of Rs. 2,43,339 which were carried forward from the years 1964-6...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »