Gujarat Court February 1976 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-i Vs. S.L.M. Maneklal Industries L ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR133(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The assessee in both these cases is the same and the assessment years are different, viz., in Income-tax Reference No. 125 of 1974, the assessment year is 1965-66, whereas in Income-tax Reference No. 181 of 1974, the assessment year under reference is 1966-67. 2. The common question which is involved in both these cases in also the same. But in each of these two reference one additional question besides the common question has also been referred to us for our opinion. Since the common question which arises in both these mattes is the question of major importance, we will dispose of both these matters by this common judgment. 3. In Income-tax Reference No. 125 of 1974, at the instance of the revenue, the following questions has been referred to us for our opinio : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the one-fifth of the expenditure incurred by the assessee for purchase of drawings, designs and pa...
Ushaben Navinchandra Trivedi and anr. Vs. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Guj13; (1977)GLR424
1. The plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Suit No. 2736 of 1975 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on Sept. 10, 1975 claiming a permanent injunction against the defendants respondents restraining them from exhibiting the cinematographic picture named 'Jai Santoshl Maa'. Defendant-respondent No. 1 is a name and style of business carried on by defendant-respondent No. 2, who had produced the said movie. Defendant-respondent No. 3 is the Director of the movie and defendant respondent No. 4 had written the Them thereof Defendant-respondent No. 5 is the distributor and defendants-respondents Nos. 6 to 14 are the theatres wherein the aforesaid movie was exhibited in the City of Ahmedabad After filing of the suit the plaintiffs to* out a notice of motion for a temporary injunction restraining the exhibition of the movie by the defendants. On notice being given to the defendants, they appeared and showed cause. After hearing both the parties the learned City Civil Judge discharged the rule on t...
Sumanlal Shivlal Gheewala Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ626; (1976)GLR659
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The appellant was the first accused in Special Case No. 1/74 of the court of Assistant Judge. Broach, in which he is convicted for the offences under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He Is sentenced to suffer R.I, of one year and to the payment of fine of Ra 200/- in default of which he is ordered to undergo further R.I. of 2 months for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned trial Judge has not recorded any separate sentence for offence under Section 161 I.P.C.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant-accused was serving as a clerk in the office of the Mamlatdar, Broach, in the month of December, 1972. Original accused No. 2 one Ambalal Kesurji Desai, who has been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, was at that time serving as the Mamlatdar.3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Usmangani Gulam Rasul Mansury, whose deposition appears at E...
Virmati Ramkrishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: [1981]131ITR659(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J. 1. Since common questions of law arise in these two matters on facts and in circumstances which are similar, we have heard them together and are disposing of them by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, however, we shall separately set out the facts of each case in brief. I. Income-tax Reference No. 134 of 1974. 2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1967. The assessee derived her income from dividends and also received a small amount by way of interest on annuity deposit during the previous year. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed a education in respect of two items of expenditure under s. 57(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : first, an amount of Rs. 44,397 being the amount of interest on the outstanding loan of Rs. 8,53,118 and, secondly, an amount of Rs. 1,900, being the total amount of fees paid to the income-tax practitione...
D.L. Vyas Vs. Arvindbhai Haribhai Desai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: (1976)17GLR695
C.V. Rane, J.1. Respondent No. 1 Arvindbhai Haribhai Desai and one Umar Ibrahim were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class Navsari for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned Magistrate acquitted Accused No. 2 of the offence he was charged with, whereas, respondent No. 1 who was Accused No. 1 in that case was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act and sentenced to R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for a further period of one year.2. According to the prosecution, the Superintendent of customs Mr. D.N. Desai received information that contraband goods were being carried by a boat in purna river. It was expected that the above goods were to be carried by road after they were unloaded from the boat. He, therefore, asked the persons from his department to keep a watch. At about 10 p.m. on 27-2-1962, a truck...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›