Gujarat Court October 1978 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.
Vankar Kuber Jetha Vs. Vankar Lilaben Raja
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-16-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR584
S.H. Sheth, J.1. In a petition Tiled by this wife under Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights, decree was passed against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 3/- per month. The decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Palanpur. The husband has filed an appeal in the District Court against that decree. It appears that he did not obtain any stay order from the District Court. The wife, therefore, filed the execution proceedings in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Palanpur. In the execution petition, she only prayed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,074. 88 p. which, according to her, became due and payable under the decree. She sought the assistance of the Court in the matter of execution of the said part of the decree by arresting her husband and putting him in civil prison. She stated that the amount of maintenance necessary to be deposited for the civil arrest of h...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv, Ahmedabad Vs. Trinity Traders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: [1987]163ITR381(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. These two references arise out of one and the same order of the Tribunal. Hence we will dispose of both the matters by this common judgment. In this case, at the instance of the assessee the following question has been referred for our opinion : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts, in holding that the payments of Rs. 48,939 made to M/s. Manubhai & Co. of Ahmedabad are not covered by rule 6DD(j)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The following question has been referred at the instance of the Revenue. 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the payments of Rs. 9,791 made to M/s. Yogeshchandra & Co. of Bombay are covered by rule 6DD(j)(i) and (ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 3. The facts leading to these two references are as follows : 'We are concerned with assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is a registered firm which derives income from a spinning mill. It purchases cotton waste and manufactures yarn which i...
Nathubhai Rambhai Vs. Bhaidas Ranchhoddas (Since Deed, by His Heirs) S ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR406
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by the original tenant seeking the fixation of the purchase price under the provisions of Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He had filed proceedings before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal of Mmdvi, District Surat seeking the fixation of the purchase price. The Tribunal by its order dated 5-10-74 proceeded to fix the purchase price as per the order Annexure-A to the petition. In the landlord's appeal No. 27/72 before the Assistant Collector of Choryasi Taluka, Surat, the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal came to be set aside as per the order Annexure-B and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector as per its judgment Annexure-C. The original tenant is, therefore, before this High Court challenging the said order of the Assistant Collector confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal.2. The short ground on which the Assistant Collector and the Revenue Tribunal negatived the request of the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. Rasiklal Balabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR303(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. A neat point of law, which, as described by Krishna Iyer J. in CIT v. R. M. Chidambaram Pillai : [1977]10ITR292(SC) , 'lends itself to subtle spinning of gossamer webs of argument' arises for decision in this case. The point which could have been disposed of on the plane of commonsense has given rise to a legal debate where a number of authorities is cited by the rival sides. The question which has been referred to us in this reference for our opinion is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the annual letting value of the godown owned by the assessee and used for the business carried on by him in partnership was not liable to be included in his total income under section 22 of the I. T. Act, 196 ?' 2. The question arises in the following circumstances : 3. The relevant assessment years with which we are concerned in this reference are 1967-68 to 1971-72. The respondent-assessee-an individual...
Chhotalal Prabhudas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR631(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the land under reference was not agricultural land within the meaning of s. 2(e)(i) of the W.T. Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1969-70, the relevant previous year being samvat year 2024. The assessee is a HUF and the assessee seemed to be carrying on the business of brick-making, being potters by caste. The assessee purchased survey No. 41 - two acres and twenty gunthas - and survey No. 51 admeasuring two acres and twenty-nine gunthas, by a sale deed dated 27th February, 1930. By another sale deed dated July 15, 1933, the assessee family purchased the adjoining survey No. 42 and all these three survey numbers seems to have been utilised for the purpose of excavation so that bricks might be made. Even bri...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. M.K. Doshi
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR499(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since these two references relating to assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 as well as assessment year 1966-67, respectively, raise an identical question arising under the same facts and circumstances pertaining to the assessment of the same assessee, who is the respondent before us, we intend to dispose of these two references by this common judgment. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to these two references shortly stated are as under : The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. He claimed before the ITO that during these three years of assessment under reference no part of the income from the two trusts created by him under the indentures of trust of July 11, 1955, as amended by an amending deed of trust of February 8, 1962, and another indenture of trust of the same date could be added under the provisions of s. 64(v) of the I.T. Act as was applicable at the relevant time. Under the aforesaid first indenture of trust of July 11, 1955, the assesse...
Bharat Petroleums Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR75(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 155(5) were attracted and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the development rebate ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessment years under consideration are 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relevant accounting years being Samvat Years 2023 and 2024. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in diesel oil engines, machinery spare parts, equipment, etc. The firm was carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs. Bharat Petroleums with its head office at Rajkot and branches at Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad, Anand, Mehsana and Bhuj. The partnership was constituted under a deed of partnership dated November 2, 1964. There were six partners of the firm. By a deed dated Jun...
Manubhai Somabhai Shah Vs. Bipinchandra Jagmohandas Parikh and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR409
M.K. Shah, J.1. An interesting question touching the interpretation of Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code is raised in this special criminal application which arises from the criminal proceedings which were instituted against opponent No. 1-original accused at the instance of the applicant who lodged information with the police that the accused had trespassed into the premises which were in his occupation as a tenant and that theft of certain articles was committed by the accused from the said premises. After police investigated into the matter, the accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Kaira-Mehmedabad. On 13th January 1978, the Assistant Public Prosecutor gave an application (ex. 9) inter alia stating that a communication has been received from the District Magistrate, Kaira dated 5th January 1978, for withdrawing the said case against the accused which h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›