Gujarat Court February 1981 Judgments
Manibhai Motibhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Guj)168; [1981]131ITR120(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. We are concerned in this case with assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is an individual. The relevant previous year is calendar year 1969. The assessee had income from share of profits form the partnership firm in which he was a partner, remuneration which he received from different sources, dividend income, income by way of interest and property income. The assessee was the joint owner along with three other individuals, namely, Vimalbhai Nagindas Shah, Gautambhai Vimalbhai Shah and Vikrambhai Vimalbhai Shah. The assessee was the owner to the extent of fifteen per cent. In the lands along with the other three co-owners. The respective shares of the co-owners were - Vimalbhai nagindas Shah, 25 per cent. Gautambhai Vimalbhai Shah, 30 per cent., Vikrambhai Vimalbhai Shah, 30 per cent. and the assessee 15 per cent. There four owners were the joint owners of five survey numbers, namely Survey Nos. 98/1, 98/2, 99, 107/1/2 and 107/2. All these survey numbers were of Shekhpur...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Alankar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Guj)252; [1982]133ITR866(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The following 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 holding that expenses which were not of capital nature otherwise but were incurred prior to February 24, 1968, could not be allowed to the assessee as revenue expenses (2) If the answer to the above question is in negative, whether the assessee is entitled to get deduction of Rs. 45, 708 as revenue expenses to work out the taxable income (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that expenses of Rs. 7, 672 for payment of the municipal taxes, salary, advertisement expenses. interest, licence fees, etc., incurred prior to February 24, 1968, were not allowable (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 4,525 expenses for linen and crockery being initial expenses on these two items sho...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinchandra Jivraj Mehta and Vs. Lalbhai Metabhai Vasava and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas27(Guj); (1982)2GLR582
Majmudar, J.1. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, now we have to consider the question of awarding adequate compensation to the claimant on the head of the pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities in life which the severe accidental head injury had left on the claimant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant of Rs. 3,000 as just and reasonable compensation. We find that the aforesaid award of the Tribunal is grossly adequate and it is far below the line drawn by the decided cases which had to deal with a similar question especially the cases which came up for consideration before the English court. Before we proceed to deal with the question of assessment of the proper damages on the head of the pain shock and suffering in the light of the peculiar injuries suffered by the claimant it would be profitable to have a look at the settled legal position on this aspect. 2. In First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 and group decided by my learned brother P. D.Desai J and R. C...
Tag this Judgment!Naginbhai Devshibhai Sanghvi Vs. Ramniklal Paun and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR304
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioner instituted a Suit No. 36 of 1978 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amreli, to recover a sum of Rs. 18,000/ from the opponents, being the purchase price of an Ambassador Car. The summonses were issued on the opponents but they were returned unserved. The petitioner once again paid the process fees for the service of the summonses on 24th November 1978. The summonsee were, however, returned unserved for want of proper address and the time for service being short. The summonses were, therefore, reissued by the Court but once again they returned unserved. Thereupon the petitioner filed on application. Exhibit 8, on 23rd February 1979, to permit him to pay the process-fees for the service of the summonses, which application was granted. However, the petitioner failed to pay the process fees. On the next date, that is, on 16th March 1979, another application, Exhibit 9, was given for permission to pay the process fees which was grante...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Mansukhlal Vs. Hansagauri Ramshanker and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2033; (1981)GLR1223
ORDERV.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This is a petition filed by petitioner Harish Mansukhlal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the husband') against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 9 of 1978, and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 1979, granting maintenance to respondent No. 1 Hansagauri Ramshanker (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') of Rs. 75/- per month from the husband,2. Unfortunately, the love marriage between the boy and the girl of different castes ended into a failure. The wife belongs to Brahmain caste of Vartej near Bhavnagar and the boy belongs to Bania caste of Ahmedabad. At any rate, both of them married on 24-1-1977 and both stayed together at Ahmedabad. It also seems that thereafter the families of both the parties reconciled. Thereafter, somehow or the other on 4-8-1977 the wife left with her father who had come to Ahmedabad, and thereafter, as per the allega...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Govindlal Mathurbhai Oza
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Guj)165; [1982]138ITR711(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. A few facts need to be noticed which have led to these two references. One Mathurbhai Mansukhram purchased two pieces of agricultural lands of S. Nos. 5 and 7 admeasuring 3 acres 5 gunthas and 1 acre 35 gunthas respectively, situate within the revenue limits of village Amraiwadi within the City of Ahmedabad. The corresponding area of the land was 24,200 sq. yards. The said Mathurbhai Mansukhram had two sons Govind and Vasudev. They constituted a joint family of Mathurdas Mansukhram. Govindbhai has four sons, namely, Kandarp, Sudhir, Pankaj and Pradeep and his wife, Ramaben. It appears that a partition of the Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUF') of Mathurabhai Mansukhram was effected on April 6, 1950, in the pursuance of which the aforesaid two pieces of land, inter alia, came to the share of Govindbhai. Since there was a smaller HUF of Govindbhai comprising of himself, his four sons and wife and the two pieces of land belonged to his smaller HUF. I...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Ramagauri Jamnadas Patel Vs. the State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ903; (1981)GLR972
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is the wife of one Jamnadas Naranbhai Patel and she complains about the order of detention passed by the State of Gujarat against her husband directing that her husband should be detained in prison under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The petition is presented under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order of detention at Annexure 'A'. The order of detention was passed against the detenu on Jan. 29, 1981'. It was passed by the State of Gujarat and it has been duly authenticated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government. The order way passed because the Government of Gujarat wa$ satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal Amratlal Kotecha Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-13-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2037; (1982)1GLR27
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner, who happens to be the brother of one Kan-tilal Amratlal Kotecha who is the detenu in the present case, challenges the order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar dated Jan. 21, 1981 seeking to detain said Shri Kanti-lal as in the opinion of the detaining authority the detenu had a disclosed tendency to commit offences Under Section 3 of the prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Shortly stated, the facts leading to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order and direction, are as under:2. The detenu is an authorised dealer in kerosene for the area of Bhavnagar and Amreli district, except Bhavnagar city and Bhavnagar taluka, The detenu holds licences for dealing in kerosene and light diesel oil and for that purpose he has entered into an agreement with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on Mar. 21, 1968. It is the grievance of the detenu that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-v Vs. Abdul Razak and Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-12-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR825(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessee, M/s. Abdul Razak & Company of Dhoraji, carries on business as commission agents as well as dealers in grocery articles having their head office at Dhoraji and branches at Bombay, Mangalore, Veraval and Chorvad. In the course of assessment for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee, inter alia, made a claim before the ITO for a bad debt of Rs. 78,824 in respect of the amount due from M/s. Mohmad Peer Mohmad of Nasik. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the impugned debt was neither incurred in the course of money-lending nor in the course of commission agency. The ITO noted that the bad debt was written off from the Bombay books of the assessee-firm. The main source of the income at Bombay arose from the commission agency and dealings in grocery articles. The ITO also referred in that connection to the course of business of commission agency where the assessee-firm had to advance money to the constituents against the goods received from them...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar Estate Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR635(Guj)
Mehta, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this reference are, shortly stated, as under : The assessee is a registered firm, for the assessee year 1967-68 ; it made a return of income of Rs. 25,854. According to s. 139(1) the said return should have been filed by August 15, 1967. The ITO, in the course of the assessment, was of the opinion that the closing stock was not properly valued and he, therefore, made an addition on that count and assessed the assessee on the total income of Rs. 69,080. The ITO directed the issuance of a notice, for the late submission of the return of income, under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee, inter alia, stated that since the income returned for the assessment year in question was only Rs. 25,854, which was below the limit prescribed under s. 271(3) of the Act for levying a penalty, no notice for an initiation of penalty proceedings was competent. The assessee further contended that it was only on account of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »