Gujarat Court February 1980 Judgments
Rajan Ramkrishna Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-29-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Guj)293; [1981]127ITR1(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the notice issued by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under s. 25(2) of the W.T. Act seeking to revise the orders passed by the WTO in the case of the petitioner for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78. 2. The petitioner is an individual and is being assessed in the status of an individual under the W.T. Act. The petitioner had submitted his returns of wealth for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78, in respect of his wealth as on the valuation dates, March 31, 1974, to March 31, 1977, respectively, treating March 31, of each year as the relevant valuation date. In each of these four years under consideration, one of the assets shown by the petitioner in his return was the holding of shares in Cloth Traders Pvt., Ltd., a joint stock company which is an investment company. For each of the four years under consideration, the petitioner had valued the shares at Rs. 143.39, Rs. 235.59, and Rs. 219.48 and Rs. 245.41, respectively, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Navnitlal K. Zaveri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Baroda
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Guj)346
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the order, Ex. 'L', to the petition passed by the by the respondent, Commissioner of I.T. under s. 273A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The order was passed on March 27, 1979. The facts leading to this litigation are as follows: The petitioner before us is the karta of a HUF and the assessee in the income-tax proceedings is that HUF. The HUF is known as Navnitlal K. Zaveri and the Karta of the HUF as Dwarkadas N. Zaveri. The HUF submitted return of income for the assessment year 1972-73 for the according year ending on March 31, 1972, showing Rs. 12,160 as income from immovable property. It appears that a new building was constructed and part of the cost of construction was incurred in the year under consideration, namely, the year ending on March 31, 1972. The cost of construction was estimated by the ITO and from the estimated cost the ITO deducted an amount which was shown to have been actually spent by the petitioner for the construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Surat District Co-operative Purchase Andsale Union Ltd. Vs. Income-tax ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Guj)289; [1981]129ITR718(Guj)
Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner is a co-operative purchase and sale union registered under the Indian Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It has challenged that a notice issued by the ITO under s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking to reopen the previously concluded assessment of the petitioner-society for the assessment year 1975-76. The relevant accounting year is 1974-75. 2. The petitioner-society contends that the respondent-ITO had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings as the condition precedent to the exercise of the power given under s. 147 of the Act does not exist in the present case. 3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy between the parties, it is necessary to have a glance at the relevant facts. The petitioner society functioning at Surat submitted a return of its income for the assessment year 1975-76 on June 30, 1975, and disclosed its income for the relevant year as under : Rs. Business income 1,79,468 Adjusted agains...
Tag this Judgment!Gabhaji Lilaji Vs. Vora Saiyadbhai Kadarbhai Etc.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj99; (1980)GLR961
ORDER1. The Petitioner was a tenant of the land of S. No. 31 admeasuring acres 16-35 gunthas situate within the revenue limits of village Khanusa in Vijapur taluka of the Mehsana District. This piece of land was divided into two parts; S. No. 31/1 and S. No. 31/2 admeasuring acres 8-13 gunthas and acres 8-12 gunthas respectively. The respondent of Special Civil Application No. 305 of 1977 purchased the land of S. No. 31/1 while the respondent of Special Civil Application No. 304 of 1977 purchased the land of S. No. 31/2.The grievance of the Petitioner is that his name was removed from the record of rights at the instance of the respondents who applied to the Mamlatdar concerned on the ground that the Petitioner was no more a tenant on the said Piece of land, without any inquiry being held as required by law. The Petitioner, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the Prant Officer who directed the respondents to seek negative declaration under Section 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. AmIn Prakash V. ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR41
S.H. Sheth, J.1. Seventy-four post-graduate students of B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, have filed this petition in which they challenge the reservation made by the State Government for Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes and for socially and educationally backward classes for the posts of Registrar and Houseman at Post-Graduate Medical Centres in the State. On behalf of the petitioners, several contentions have been raised. They are as follows:(1) Admissions to post-graduate medical courses can be regulated by law made by Gujarat University to which B.J. Medical College is affiliated and not by the State Government.(2) Regulation of admissions to post-graduate medical courses by the State Government is in contravention of the law made by Medical Council.(3) Housemanship is a necessary concomitant of post-graduate medical education. Therefore, it is governed by the law or regu lation made by Medical Council and it cannot be governed by the State Government Resolution.(4) Housemanshi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendrakumar Kohli Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Sabarmati, Ah ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: 1981ACJ385; (1981)0GLR152; (1981)IILLJ126Guj
M.P. Thakkar, J. 1. Who deserves greater sympathy, the lowly paid workman of the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (O.N.G.C) who became blind in one eye whilst sweating for it or the O.N.G.C. it self who has become blind in both the eyes and is fighting tooth and nail with all the technical arguments at its disposal and legal talents at its command with the limitless public fund at its disposal Let alone being an ideal employer, can one not expect the O.N.G.C. to be a fair and humane employer Should it prefer to spend thousands to pay to lawyers rather than to its own employee who has sustained permanent loss of an eye in the course of winning oil and profits for the O.N.G.C. and for the Nation These questions come to the fore since a 30 year old welder employed by the O.N.G.C. lost his right eye by reason of the fact that a piece of metal caused injury to his eye in the course of an operation, undertaken by the party of drillers of which he was a member, for retrieving a precious instrumen...
Tag this Judgment!H. and R. Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR10
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The short question that arises for our determination in this application is whether glazed tiles fall within Entry 28-C-'flcoring tiles' or Entry 28-A'sanitary fittings' in Schedule A to Rule 14 of the Octroi Rules framed under Section 457(7) read with Section 149(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The two entries may be read in juxtaposition-_______________________________________________________________________________________ 28A. Sanitary fittings, including C.I. pipes, 28C. Flooring tiles, lead pipes, cement pipes, earthenware pipes, stone ware pipes, gunmetal valves, gunmetal and brass cocks and their fittings.______________________________________________________________________________________According to the petitioners giazed tiles would fall within Entry 28-C and not Entry 28-A under which octroi duty is being levied and charged from petitioner No. 1 and others dealing in glazed tiles.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Mohmad ZayauddIn Shah Sahibmiyan Alti Vs. Noorbibi @ Vaziranbibi ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR120
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This revision application arises out of an interim order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') and reversed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in exercise of his revisional power. The question which is raised for my consideration is whether the interim order of attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate can be said to be an interlocutory order against which no revision application would lie under Section 397(2) of the Code or whether it is an order, which, though interim in nature, can be revised in exercise of revisional powers under that section. Before I proceed to examine this question, a few facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the sides, may be stated. The petitioner is the owner of residential premises bearing City Survey No. 3585 and Municipal Census No. 1976(2) situated ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Miss Bhavna P. Patel and ors. Vs. the Dean, Govt., Medical College ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR13
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioners who have passed their final M.B.B.S. examination from the M. S University of Baroda in November 1978 challenge in this petition the notices dated January 4, 1980 and January 19, 1980 at Annexure D and F respectively, as well as the merit list prepared by the Dean, Medical College, Baroda, Annexure G to the petition. The impugned merit list is prepared by the Dean, Medical College, Baroda, respondent No. 1 herein for the purpose of appointing candidates to the posts of Houseman at the Government Medical College, Baroda. The petitioners contend that the impugned merit list has been prepared by the 1st respondent on total misconception of the judgment of (his Court delivered in Special Civil Application No. 1516 of 1979 decided on August 1, 1979 by the Division Bench consisting of Divan C.J. and R.C. Mankad J. Dr. Nikhil V. Vachharaja.nl v. State of Guj. and Ors. 1979 (2) XX (2) G.L.R. 109.2. In order to appreciate the controversy posed for consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Mascalchi Mario
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR49(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad has referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for our decision a question of law arising out of its order dated February 16, 1977. The question referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the salary amount of Rs. 49,521 could not be said to have accrued or arisen in India ?' So far as this question is concerned, it is fully covered by our decision rendered in ITR No. 270 of 1977, decided today. Divan C.J., speaking for this Bench, has answered an identical question of law arising form similar facts against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid decision, the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 2. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »