Gujarat Court March 1981 Judgments
Sercon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Guj)303; [1982]136ITR881(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. In this reference made at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinio : 'Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the land in question bearing final plot No. 522-C sold by the assessee was no agricultural land and that the excess of Rs. 10,65,243 was liable to be taxed as capital gains tax even when the plot in question at the time of its sale was entered in the Government revenue records as agricultural land ?' 2. In the instant case, we are concerned with assessment year 1970-71, the relevant period of account being the financial year 1969-70. The assessee before us is a limited company and it was formed on April 1, 1968, by amalgamation of two private limited companies, namely, Western India Prospecting Syndicate Private Ltd., and Cotton and Cloth Private Ltd. The Western Indian Prospecting Syndicate Private Ltd., was formed on May 1, 1920, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and on July 10, 1947, Wes...
Tag this Judgment!Hussens Hasanall Pulavwala Vs. Sabbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj190; (1982)1GLR204
ORDER1. The facts giving rise to this revision application, briefly stated. are that respondent No. 1 filed an administration suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad being Suit No. 262 of 1978 for the administration of the estate of deceased Sugarabu Kikabhai. In the said suit be joined his stepbrother Asgarali and step-sisters Amina and Zenab as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.These three defendants filed written statements at Exs. 25 and 26 contesting the suit He also joined his true sisters Husena and Nafisa an defendants Nos 4 and 5 and they filed a supporting written statement Ex. 37. By that written statement, they accepted the averments made in the plaint as correct and prayed that the estate of the deceased may be administered. Defendant No. 6 Abbasbhai also filed a contesting written statement to the suit. It appears that on the basis of the averments made in the pleadings of the parties the issues were settled at Ex 42. The Plaintiff thereafter entered the witness box and he was...
Tag this Judgment!Sameen Banu Makrani and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: (1981)22GLR1084
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A few relevant facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the questions raised in this group of appeals being Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 208 to 216 and 218, 222 and 232 ail of 1980 and No. 53 of 1981.2. The dispute centers round the impugned order of the Director of Education of the Government of Gujarat being No. Training-Admission 91/7/920 of November 6, 1980 canceling the earlier orders of the same authority dated August 29, 1980; September 17, 1980; September 22, 1980; October 3, 1980 and October 9, 1980, which directed the different teachers training schools-Government as well as private-in the State of Gujarat to admit all the 430 candidates named therein out of which some are appellants before us in this group of appeals, and about 44 are arrayed as respondents No. 3 to 47 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 1980, and the others are the petitioners in the various Civil Applications preferred by them for being joined as parties. The impugned order was required...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Parmanand G. Makhia Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR713
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is an interesting petition brought to this Court by one candidate who had appeared before the respondent No. 2, the Gujarat Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission for brevity's sake at the interview held for selecting amongst others a tutor for Orthodontia for the Government Dental College at Ahmedabad run by the respondent No. 1, the State of Gujarat, and headed by its Dean, Dr. K. Bhargav, the respondent No. 3 herein, at which selection the respondent No. 4 was selected. His selection has been called in question by the petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate, inter alia on the ground that the selection of the respondent No. 4 was manoeuvred by the respondent No. 5, Dr. Malaowala, whose son the respondent No. 4 is.The petitioner prays for the following main relief in this petition:That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the selection of...
Tag this Judgment!Apoorva Shantilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Guj)84; (1983)1GLR799; [1982]135ITR158(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. A very vital question which was res integra till the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court consisting of A. P. Sen C.J. (as he then was) and J. S. Verma J., rendered their decision in CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) on April : [1979]116ITR577(MP) has given rise to the present reference at the instance of the assessee. The question is as to whether a Hindu father by virtue of his overriding powers as patria potestas recongnised by traditional Hindu law can effect a partial partition (in the sense of partion in respect of only some of the assets as contradistinguished from all the assets) at his own volition in respect of an HUF, consisting only of himself and his minor sons. By the aforesaid decision, which is the only decision on the point, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the view that a Hindu father does not have any such power to effect a partial partition in the sense of division only of a part of HUF assets whilst maintaining or continuing the status of H...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Mansurali Valibhai Dudhani
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Guj)292; [1984]148ITR526(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following question for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the inclusion of an amount of Rs. 72,000 appearing as a credit in the capital account of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee in his return of income for the assessment year 1966-67 disclosed an income of Rs. 2,824. The year of account relating to the said assessment year was Samvat year 2021. According to the assessee, he was carrying on business in grains and grocery. In his capital account for the Samvat year 2021, which he produced before the ITO, the assessee had shown a credit balance of Rs. 72,000 on the first day of the accountings period. He had also credited of Rs. 7,596 as net income from agriculture. The household expenses were shown at Rs. 1,480. ...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Gunvantrai Bhatt Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1895; (1981)GLR1117
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein is the brother of one Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt who has been detained under the provisions of Section 3, Sub-section (2), of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as N. S. A). The order of detention has been passed by the first respondent, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, and is dated Feb. 20, 1981. The order states that the Commissioner of Police who has been authorised under the provisions of Section 3 Sub-section (3) of N.S.A. was satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City, it was necessary to make the order directing that the said detenu Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt be detained and hence this order of detention was being passed. The grounds of detention which were duly furnished to the detenu in due time required by law are dated Feb. 21, 1981. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumatilal Chimanlal Shah Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Guj)209; [1982]138ITR143(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. At the instance of the accountable person for the estate of the deceased, one Maniben Shivlal, the following three questions have been referred to us under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948, were not relevant in determining the value of the land as on the death of the deceased as the said Act had been declared void from its inception by the Supreme Court 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the words 'if sold' in section 36(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, create a fictional position under which the Tribunal had to assumes and proceed to value the property on the basis that there was an open market the land in question could be sold 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajpipla Municipality Vs. Manekben and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj210; (1981)0GLR568
ORDER1. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') Survey No. 22/B of Sheet No. 18 admeasuring about 68 square yards and 2 square feet (57/04/27 Sq. Meters) came to be acquired for the public purpose of widening the road. This notification was followed by another notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 27th April. 1973. The opponent, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the owners of the land in question. The fourth opponent made an award under Section 12 of the Act on 12th December, 1978 and fixed the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 60/- per square meter and awarded a lump sum for the superstructure along with the usual award of solatium. The owners feeling dissatisfied with the award sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation by his order dated 20th June, 1980. The Rajpipla Municipality that is the acquiring body has preferred this Revision Application contendin...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surindarsinh Gura ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj237; [1983]54CompCas118(Guj); (1981)0GLR963
P.D. Desai, J. 1. This appeal by the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in an accident which occurred on May 31, 1978 in Jamnagar in the vicinity of the Court building raises contentions relating to the appellant's liability to satisfy an award in the sum of Rs. 97,000/made in favour of the first respondent (original claimant). The insured vehicle was a motorcycle bearing No. GJP 8123 owned by the second respondent and driven at the material time by the third respondent. The Tribunal found that the first respondent, who was the pillion rider on a scooter, the other vehicle involved in the accident, suffered injuries in the course of the accident as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the third respondent. The award, in so far as it decided the issue of negligence against the driver of the motorcycle, has become final and it has also become final qua the quantum of damages awarded. The short question which requires determination, as indicated earlier is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›