Gujarat Court August 1975 Judgments
Morvi Merrcantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR568(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following four questions have been referred to us for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstnces of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no bar of res judicata or estoppel under the Income-tax Act and that the revenue authorities were not bound by the previous ordrs while assessing the interest in come from the fixed deposits as income from other sources for the assessment year 1969 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on fixed deposits was taxable as 'income from other ssosurces' and not as business income' 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest oof Rs. 20,826 under the decree passed by the Supreme Court of India was liable to be taxed as revenue receipti 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that t...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, G ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR25(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 48,004 incurred between October 1, 1964, and March 31, 1965, could be allowed as business expenditure ?' 2. The assessment year under consideration is 1965-66, the relevant accounting year being the year ending March 31, 1965. The assessee is a private limited company. It was incorporated on March 24, 1964. The main object of the company was to acquire immovable property and to give out either on leave and licence basis or on lease, office accommodation or residential accommodation, together with all appurtenant amenities. Soon after its incorporation the board of directors of the assessee-company passed a resolution on March 26, 1964, resolving that the assessee should purchase a portion of the main bungalow belonging to Ambalal Sarabhai in the 'Retreat' compound, Shahibag, Ahmedabad, together...
Tag this Judgment!Aher Ghela Ramshi and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR279
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners herein are the persons who are sought to buried for he offences under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 read with I.P.C. as well as Sections 25(1)(a) of the Indian arms Act. It is said the they formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of one kama smabltthe case of the prosecution is that during the scuffle the complant jelubha who happens to be a police constable at village kalyanpur. Ried to mervene but he was prevented by petitioners No. 2 and 4; who the lakhman bogha and aher desur ramshi. It is said that there-fterthonstable was stabbed by the person named Nathu Ramshi.2. The facts of the case reveal that when the proceedings were pending before the committing Magistrate, the petitioners were enlarged on bail before the committing Magistrate the utretnasr rfened to as the new code. Thereafter on 15-7-75 learned mgit a committed the case for trial to the sessions court. On hat date the petitioners applied to the learned committing Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal P. JaIn an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR585(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A few facts need be noticed before we set out the question referred to us in this group of references for our opinion. Since the facts are similar in all these references, we intend to dispose of these reference by this common judgment. 2. The relevant assessment year is 1967-68. The assessee of Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1974 was liable to pay annuity deposit for the assessment year 1967-68, admittedly before 31st March, 1967. As a matter of facts, the same was paid on 3rd April, 1967. In other words, the payment was delayed by three days. It appears that the Income-tax Officer concerned while making the assessment order for the assessment year 1967-68 allowed deduction on that count of annuity deposit from the payable income of the assessee. However, later on, the Income-tax Officer on June 17, 1969, passed on order purporting to act under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and corrected the order since the conditions precedent for condoning delay in making ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal P. JaIn an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR584(Guj)
JUDGEMENTThe judgement of the court was delivered byB. K. MEHTA J. - A few facts need be noticed before we set out the question referred to us in this group of references for our opinion. Since the facts are similar in all these references, we intend to dispose of these reference by this common judgement.The relevant assessment year is 1967-68. The assessee of Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1974 was liable to pay annuity deposit for the assessment year 1967-68, admittedly before 31st March, 1967. As a matter of facts, the same was paid on 3rd April, 1967. In other words, the payment was delayed by three days. It appears that the Income-tax Officer concerned while making the assessment order for the assessment year 1967-68 allowed deduction on that count of annuity deposit from the payable income of the assessee. However, later on, the Income-tax Officer on June 17, 1969, passed on order purporting to act under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and corrected the order since the co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Khedut Sahkari Hand Udyog M ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR206(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 decision : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the double shift allowance admissible to the assessee was to be determine not by taking 300 days as working days during the year but with reference to the second proviso to rule 8 and as such the assessee was entitled to 50% of the normal depreciation as extra allowance for double or triple shift worked (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,42,157 representing interest paid on borrowings made for purchase of machinery was fightly taken into account in computing development rebate ?' 2. We may point out that, so far as the second question is concerned, the matter is directly covered now by the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. There the Supreme Court has laid down that interest paid before th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: [1981]127ITR47(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to us by the Tribunal. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that Rs. 9,000 being the expenditure on cement factory lighting and Rs. 11,000 being the electrical expenses on that and trial runs for the cement plant, which had not started working should be considered as capital expenditure which should be added to the cost of construction of cement plant for purposes of depreciation and development rebate ?' 2. The assessee herein is a limited company and we are concerned with assessment year 1961-62. The assessee-company was started with the main object establishing and undertaking of manufacture of cement at Ranavav, near Porbandar, in Gujarat State. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee-company had not started cement production. The only business in the year of accounting was tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sharma Metal Rolling Mills Vs. Bhavnagar Nagarpalika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR753
A.N. Surti, J.1. An interesting point of law is involved in the present appeal viz. Whether a suit can lie against the municipality after six months next after the accrual of the cause of Action in respect of over-payment of terminal tax paid by a tax payer to a municipality under a bona fide mistaken belief in regard to the rate of terminal tax levied, charged and collected by the municipality.2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid point of law, a few relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated. The appeal is directed by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent-bhavnagar municipality (hereinafter referred as 'the respondent municipality'). The appellant-plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1968 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division)', Bhavnagar against the respondent-municipality for recovery of Rs. 14,278-74ps' being the excess amount of terminal tax received and collected by the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Ramanlal Chunilal Vs. Rana Chunilal Ranchhod Das (Since Deed, by ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1975
Reported in: (1977)18GLR118
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order of Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, passed in Old jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 153 of 1946 rejecting Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 342 of 1972 filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff, praying that the said suit be taken on file and a final decree be passed therein after re-adjusting the claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein in view of the death of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 herein. The order in question has been made in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No 3 are, respectively, father and mother of the petitioner and respondent No 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for partition of the joint family properties being Civil Suit No. 143 of 1946 against the respondents herein on 17th October, 1946 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Ahmedabad. In the said suit, the petitioner claimed his 1/4th share in the joint fam...
Tag this Judgment!Ratansinh Karsanbhai Nakum Vs. Isadkhan Gulamkhan and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1975
Reported in: (1976)17GLR820
D.P. Desai, J.1. This Revisional Application raises a question whether a claim of a third party arising out of the use of motor vehicle alone lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal Constituted under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') in view of the amendments carried out in Section 110 by Act No. 56 of 1969, which admittedly came into force with effect from March 2, 1970. The accident in the present case took place on September 21, 1973, and the claim made in this case relates to damage to the motor car of the petitioner alone. The petitioner was not bodily injured in that accident. According to the interpretation of Section 110-A(1)(a) by this High Court in Farsubhai v. Durlabhai 1973 Accidents Claims Journal, 149 (13 Gujarat Law Reporter 674), such sort of a claim would not be entertainable by the tribunal. This would follow from the interpretation of Section 110-A(1)(a) laying down that only three categories of pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »