Gujarat Court February 1976 Judgments
Motilal Ambaidas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR137(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, 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 hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that provision of section 41(1) is attracted and the refund from the Sales tax is taxable under the Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income has been rightly assessed to tax in the year 1965-66, when the order of the Supreme Court has been announced or in the year when the High Court decision was given or in the years in which the amount was collected by the assessee ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : We are concerned with the assessment year 1965-66, the relevant previous year being Samvat year 2020. The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of three partners. It deals in tobacco including tobacco imported from other St...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Iii Vs. Poonjabhai Vanmalidas
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR388(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. The assessee in both these cases is the same. The assessment years under reference in Income-tax Reference No. 129 of 1974 are assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the assessment year under reference in Income-tax Reference No. 168 of 1974 is the assessment year 1967-68. Since the principal question which arises for consideration in both the cases is the same, we will dispose of both these matters by this common judgment. In Income-tax Reference No. 129 of 1974, the question that has been referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts of Rs. 19,961 for the assessment year 1964-65 and Rs. 1,091 for the assessment year 1965-66 in question were not includible in the taxable income of the assessee under section 41(4) of the Act for the respective years under reference ?' 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 168 of 1974 the following two question have been referred to us for o...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Mills Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle Vi, Ahmeda ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR423(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and it runs a textile mill at Ahmedabad. The respondent is the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction to asses the petitioner-company under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. During the course of proceedings for assessment to income-tax for assessment year 1964-65, the corresponding previous year being calendar year 1963, the petitioner-company was given an allowance in the sum of Rs. 49,354 by way of development rebate under section 33 on account of its having purchased certain machinery during the relevant previous year. The allowance was made since the petitioner-company fulfilled the conditions laid down in section 34 and more particularly the condition prescribed in section 34(3)(a) which requires that a certain percentage of the amount allowed as development rebate must be credited to a reserve account to be utilised by the assessee during the period of eight years next following for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Rajkot Dist. Gopalak Co-operative, Milk Producers' Union Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR177
C.V. Rane, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of criminal revision applications Nos. 42 to 46 of 1976 as they involve a common question of law.2. The petitioner in each of these cases, was at the relevant point of time, the Manager, Rajkot District Gopalak Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Rajkot. The food inspector of Rajkot Municipality (now replaced by the Municipal Corporation) Rajkot, has filed five complaints against the petitioner and the other persons in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First class at Rajkot alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by selling adulterated milk. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection in each of the aforesaid cases that as he was a public servant, the criminal Court could not take cogni zance of the alleged offence in the absence of sanction of the State Government as contemplated by Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad Vs. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1976)GLR898(GJ)
Diwan, C.J.1. In this case the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has referred the following question to us for our opinion under Section 54(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958:'Under which article of Bombay Stamp Act the instrument dated March 31 of 1960 is chargeable with stamp duty, whether it is Article 46 as claimed by the Revenue or Article 47 as claimed by the respondents or any other article ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows:On March 23, 1950 Chaturbhuj alias Bachubhai Tribhovandas and Chhotalal Tribhovandas who are the two respondents in this reference and one Thakkar Tribhovandas Ramji entered into an agreement of partnership for the purpose of starting and running a business of Motor Transport, Motor spare parts etc. The firm was to carry on its business in the name and style of M/s. Bachubbai Tribhovandas and Company near Savarkundia in Bhavnagar district of the State. The firm carried on its business upto March 18, 1960. It was decided by all the partne...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdev Ratilal Patel Vs. Chairman, Bank of Baroda and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ409Guj
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner-agent, who had been serving at Santh Piply Branch, Nadiad, having been dismissed by the order, dated June 5, 1974, communicated on June 10, 1974 at Annexure E, challenges the said order in this petition. The petitioner had joined the service of the original Bank of Baroda in the year 1958 as a clerk. He was promoted as an officer and was appointed as an agent at Santh Piply Branch of the Bank of Baroda at Nadiad. In the course of duties he had purchased some foreign bills (travellers' cheques) at the Santh Piply Branch at Nadiad aggregating to a sum of Rs. 25,000. These bills had come in his possession on behalf of his Bank. He had deposited the amount of the foreign bills in the main branch at Baroda. On enquiry it was found that this was highly irregular and improper and the petitioner's explanation in this connection was, therefore sought by the letter, dated May 28, 1973, at Annexure A for ascertaining the full facts. The petitioner had addressed a l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Bipinbhai Vadilal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR664(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. The assessee is the karta of the Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUF') consisting of himself, his wife, son and daughter. The assessee held shares of several companies and those shares were his self-acquired and separate property. M/s. C. Doctor & Co. (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was one of such companies. The assessee held 61 shares of the company and he was also one of its directors. By a resolution dated November 7, 1961, passed by the board of directors of the company, a committee consisting of its two directors (the assessee and one Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta) was appointed 'to manage the business and affairs of the company in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association of the company and subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and subject to further superintendence and control of the board of directors'. The members of the said committee were designated as directors-in-charge and extensive p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Mansukhbhai Gandhi Vs. Punjiben D/O Nanabhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)18GLR228
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The original plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by confirming the trial Court's decree has come in this appeal.2. There is no dispute that the deceased contractual tenant Rana Chhotabhai Nanabhai, though his tenancy was duly terminated before his death on March 9, 1960, he was at the date of his death continuing in the suit premises as a statutory tenant. There is also no dispute that the deceased was doing grocery business in the suit shop and that he had left his widow Haribai and his daughter Punjiben as his heirs and all these persons - widow Haribai, daughter Punjiben and daughter's husband Manilal Chhaganlal were all residing with the deceased at the time of his death. The case of the plaintiff was that after the death of the tenant Chhotalal Naranbhai, statutory tenancy was continued only by widow Haribai. Haribai died on February 11, 1964. The plaintiff gave notice, Ex. 27, on August 18, 1964. The defendant daughter and the daug...
Tag this Judgment!Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR27a(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, 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 justified in disallowing a part of the actual price of tobacco bought from the partners and their relatives (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, namely that the partners and their relatives were paid higher price was erroneous in law ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows. The relevant assessment years are 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the relevant previous years being Samvat years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The assessee is a registered firm and carries on business in tobacco on its own account as well as on commission basis. Its head office is situated at Ode in Kaira District and it has branches at Tiruchirapally and Vellore. The Income-tax Officer, while making ...
Tag this Judgment!Marghabhai Kishabhai Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guj ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR54(Guj)
B. J. DIVAN C.J. - In this case, at the instance of the assessee, 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 justified in disallowing a part of the actual price of tobacco bought from the partners and their relatives ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, namely that the partners and their relatives were paid higher price was erroneous in law ?'The facts leading to this reference are as follows. The relevant assessment years are 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the relevant previous years being Samvat years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The assessee is a registered firm and carries on business in tobacco on its own account as well as on commission basis. Its head office is situated at Ode in Kaira District and it has branches at Tiruchirapally and Vellore. The Income-tax Officer, while making the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »