Gujarat Court March 1980 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-iii Vs. Chandulal J. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: [1981]127ITR786(Guj)
Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction on account of expenses incurred on the maintenance and use of the car under section 16(v) of the Act for the assessment year 1968-69 and under section 16(v) or under section 10(14) of the Act for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessment years under consideration are the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is an individual and at the relevant time he was an employee of Calico Mills and was provided with a car by his employer for the two year under reference. During the course of the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69, apart from the provision of car by his employer, no allowance in the nature of conveyance allowance was provided by ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Nathalal Dahyabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-08-1980
Reported in: [1980]124ITR391(Guj)
Desai, J.1. The familiar dilemma presents itself again. Is the excess sum realised by an assessee on the sale of land merely a gain on account of the engangement of value of a capital asset or is it a profit made in the operation of business by the sale of an item of the stock-in-trade 2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm which carries on business of money-lending. It also derives income by way of dividend and from investment year being Samvat year 2024. 3. It appears that the assessee had purchased 7,422 sq. yds. of land at Vadaj in S. Y. 2007. The said land was sold by the assessee in S. Y. 2024. According to the assessee, the sale resulted in a profit of Rs. 12,365. The assessee had also purchased another piece of land admeasuring 5,610 sq. yds. situate at Sabarmati jointly with one Ratilal Panchand on September 24, 1956 (S. Y. 2012). A portion of the said land admeasuring 2,077 sq. yds. was also sold in S. Y. 2024. According to the assessee the said sale resulted in a p...
State of Gujarat Vs. Jashrajbhat Tagabhai Gohil
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)21GLR994
M.K. Shah, J.1. These two appeals filed by the State are directed against the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First class, Palanpur before whom, the respondent-origional accused who is the same in both the cases, was tried for the offence punishable under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('the Act') and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-, in default, 7 days' S. I. in case No. 85 of 1979 from which arises criminal No. 467 of 1979 and fine of Rs. 15/- in default, 7 days' S. I. in case No. 87 of 1979 from which arises criminal appeal No. 468 of 1979. In the first mentioned case, the prosecution was launched for breach of rules 21(4) and 25(2) of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 ('the Rules'); while in the other case, the same was for breach of Rules 26(1), 26(2) and 26(5) of the Rules, infer alia for not maintaining a muster roll, pay roll and not issuing pay slips. The complaint was filed by the Minimum Wage Inspector, Palanpur in both the cases.2. Th...
Ravjibhai Jivabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj57; (1981)0GLR307
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. By this writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a businessman from Baroda, challenges the constitutional validity of Section 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the order of the State Government dated 29th August 1978, Annexure 'C', whereby the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 of the Act sanctioned the grant of a mining lease for soapstone for a period of twenty years in respect of the area situate in village Nathpuri, Taluka Jambughoda, District Panchamahals, to respondent No. 3, Messrs Paushak Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Baroda. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly stated, are as under.2. The petitioner made an application in the prescribed form on 1st October 1974, for a mining lease for soap-stone In respect of 303.03 acres of Nathpuri and Bhildungra villag...
Bipinbhai Vadilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i. Bipinbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Guj)95; [1980]126ITR779(Guj)
B. K. METHA J. - The assessment years with which we are concerned in this group of references are 1964-65 to 1971-72. The bone of contention between the assessee and the revenue centres round two issues, viz., (i) the managing directors remuneration, and/or (ii) sitting fees of the directors of the company known as M/s. C. Doctor & Co. Pvt. Ltd.The assessee, Bipinbhai Vadilal (hereinafter known as 'the assessee'), who is the applicant of Income-tax References Nos. 357/77, 178/77, 218/78 and respondent in Income-tax Reference No. 186/76 claims that the income of the managing directors remuneration and the directors fees is not liable to be included in his assessment as an individual, and, in effect and substance, is the income of his Hindu undivided family (hereinafter called 'the HUF') assessed as Bipinbhai Vadilal HUF, which is the applicant in Income-tax References Nos. 158/76 and 11/75 and respondent in Income-tax References Nos. 161/78. Since the claims and the contentions are iden...
Navsari Oil Products Limited Vs. the Superintendent of Central Excise ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-06-1980
Reported in: 1981LC70D(Gujarat)
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a company which manufactures at Navsari fatty acids which are consumed by textile industry. On 2nd February 1953, the petitioner obtained a licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. That licence was renewed upto 31st December 1979. It was a licence under which the petitioner was authorized to obtain without payment of duty leviable thereon 'vegetable product' to be used by them in the manufacture of stearic acid. In 1968 the petitioner obtained a licence under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to manufacture super-hardened oil. Both these licences were renewed from year to year and had been in force when this petition was filed. .The super hardened oil which the petitioner has been manufacturing was not subject to excise duty. It is indeed a 'vegetable product'. Entry 13 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, subjects 'vegetable product' to excise duly. However, there was an exemption notification issued by the ...
State of Gujarat Vs. K.S. Surendrasinhji Mansinhji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj97; (1980)2GLR45
ORDER1. A short question that arises in this petition is as to what should be the capitalised value of the cash allowance paid to junior members of the family of ex-jagirdar. The question arises in the following circumstances:2. One Mansinhji Karansinhji was the ex-Ruler of Sihora State which was formerly a semi Jurisdictional State under the Revakantha Agency but was treated for all intents and purposes as a Jagir in view of the nature of its merger agreement with the erstwhile State of Bombay effected on June 10, 1948. Mansinhji died leaving behind him three sons, namely, Pruthvisinhji and the two appellants herein Surendrasinhji and Bhupendrasinhji; two daughters Harishchandrakunverba and Laxmikunverba; his widow Lilakunverba and Fulkunverba the widow of his predeceased son Natversinhji. According to the rule of primogeniture, being the custom of the family. The eldest brother Pruthvisinhji became the Ruler of the State. However, since he was minor at the time of the demise of his f...
Adamji M. Badri and ors. Vs. Labour Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1980
Reported in: (1981)ILLJ367Guj
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a Cinema Exhibitor at Bharoch. During the first six months of 1975, he had employed 15 workmen. On 20th September, 1974, Surat Jilla Cinema Karmachari Mandal submitted to the petitioner charter of demands on behalf of the petitioner's workmen. The demands included the revision of wages, casual leave, sick leave and such other things. The petitioner negotiated with the union and the workmen and a settlement was reached on 7th March, 1975. It was signed by both the parties. Under the terms of that settlement, wages of the workmen were revised, gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was agreed to, payment of bonus was agreed to and casual leave with right to accumulate it was also agreed to. It was a private settlement. A copy of that settlement was sent to Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer. Under S. 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was sent for registration. On 21st December, 1976, Akhil Gujarat Kamdar Association served upon t...
Basant Talkies and ors. Vs. Govt. Labour Officer and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-04-1980
Reported in: (1981)22GLR243
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner is a cinema Exhibitor at Bharuch. During the first six months of 1975, he had employed 15 workmen. On 20th September 1974, Surat Jilla Cinema Karmachari Mandal submitted to the petitioner a charter of demands on behalf of the petitioner's workmen. The demands included the revision of wages, casual leave, sick leave and such other things. The petitioner negotiated with the Union and the workmen and a settlement was reached on 7th March 1975. It was signed by both the parties. Under the terms of that settlement, wages of the workmen were revised, gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was agreed to, payment of bonus was agreed to and casual leave with right to accumulate it was also agreed to. It was a private settlement. A copy of that settlement was sent to Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer. Under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was sent for registration. On 21st December 1976, Akhil Gujarat Kamdar Association served up...
Girdharlal Lavjibhai Vs. Bhogilal Girdharlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Guj139; (1981)0GLR37
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff. Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 are the original defendants and the State of Gujarat, is the 5th opponent. The State of Gujarat is only added as a party in this civil revision application and the reason for joining the State as a party is obvious: the matter concerns the Court-fees Act and that is why the State of Gujarat has been joined as one of the opponents.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajkot. The suit is for a declaration and partition of one-fourth share which the plaintiff claims in the suit land and he has Prayed that after ascertaining the one-fourth share of the land coming to his share the same should be handed over to him and possession should be given to him. In the suit acting under Section 12(3) of the Act, The Court Fees Inspector, the Inspection Officer made his report on July 12, 1976 requesting the Court that a provis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »