Gujarat Court April 1981 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iii Vs. Ami Dyestuff Corporation
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: [1982]134ITR689(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'): Question: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in deleting the penalties imposed u/s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for assessment years: (a) 1967-68, (b) 1968-69 and (c) 1969-70 holding that the department had not discharged the initial burden that the delay in the filing of the return was without reasonable cause ?' 2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. The income-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68,1968-69 and 1969-70 were due on September 30, 1967, July 30, 1968, and October 15, 1969, respectively, under s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessee-firm, however, filed the return of income for the assessment year 1967-68 on July 20, 1968, the return of income for the assessment year 1968-69 on July 20, 1970, and the return of i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Iii Vs. Granulated Fertilizers and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR400(Guj)
MANKAD J. - The assessee, a private limited company, carries on business of manufacturing and selling fertilizers. In the course of assessment for the assessment year 1970-71, one of the questions which arose before the ITO was whether interest of Rs. 1,09,617 paid by the assessee-company on the amounts borrowed by it was allowable as revenue expenditure. The assessee-company claimed that the entire payment of interest was revenue expenditure. The ITO found that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs out of the sums borrowed had been directly utilised for creation of capital assets. He was of the view that interest of Rs. 50,000 attributable to the said sum of Rs. 5 lakhs could not be allowed as business expenditure. The ITO did not record a finding to the effect that the assessee-company had spent the said sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in creating capital assets before the commencement of its business or production. He also did not find that the expenditure of Rs. 5 lakhs in acquiring capital assets was not relat...
Tag this Judgment!Tekchand Bajaj Vs. International Corporation and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj235; (1981)0GLR1229
1. This is an appeal brought to this court under 0. 43, R. I (d) of the Civil P. C. by the applicant of the Civil Misc. Application No. 58 of 1979 dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Jamnagar, who thereby refused to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him by the learned judge __________________________________________________________________________________*Against order passed by U. V. Dave Civil J, (S. D,) Jamnagar D/- 3-12-1980.__________________________________________________________________________________ in the special civil suit No. 74 of 1973 of this court.2. The ex parte decree by recourse to 0. 9, R. 6 of the Civil P, C. was passed by the learned trial Judge on 24-10-1974. after finding that the sum-mons to this applicant, the defendant No. 1, should be deemed to have been served under O. 5, R, 21, (a) of the Code, as the envelope by which the summons was despatched was returned bearing the postal endorsement 'refused'. The decree-holder filed the executi...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhani and Co. Vs. National Textile Corporation and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR273
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. By a contract dated 10th September 1973 between Messrs The Rajnagar Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company, Limited, and Messrs Lakhani and Company through Messrs Maheshkumar Dhirajlal and Company, certain goods were sold on the terms and conditions of the contract to the appellants Messrs Lakhani and Company, Clause 19 of the contract reads as under:Clause 19:- All disputes and questions whatsoever which shall arise between the parties hereto out of or in connection with the contract or as to the construction or application thereof or the respective rights and obligations of the parties hereunder clause or thing herein contained or any account of valuation to be made hereunder or as to any other matter in any way relating to these presents shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Rule for the time being in force as applicable to piecegoods for export and which will be framed by the Bombay Mill owners Association in consultation with the Exporter's...
Tag this Judgment!Mohatta Brothers Vs. Sheth Chaturbhaidas Chimanlal and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj96; (1982)1GLR585
1. The appellants, Messrs Mohatta Brothers, a partnership firm, filed three suits, being Civil Suits Nos. 106 of 1961, 314 of 1961 and 33 of 1963, in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the respondents for diverse reliefs. In Suit No. 106 of 1961 it was prayed that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants was that of partners, the Court should dissolve the firm of Messrs Chhaturbhuj Kharavala Mohatta and Company and order accounts to be taken. A similar relief was claimed in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1963 also. In Suit No. 314 of 1961 also the relief claimed was for the dissolution of the said partnership firm and for a share in the managing agency commission and for rendition of accounts. All these three suits were stayed under S. 10 read with S. 151 of the Civil P. C. in view of the pendency of First Appeal No. 984 of 1960 in the High Court arising out of the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 205 of 1954. The said First Appeal cam...
Tag this Judgment!Khusad Gram Panchayat Vs. Managing Trustees of Mutawallis of Masjid of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj254; (1982)1GLR482
1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge, Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1977 arising from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Olpad, before whom Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1971 was filed by the Administrators, Mutawallis and Trustees of Masiid of Khusad village, who are appellants in cross Second Appeal No. 496 of 1979.2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the aforesaid plaintiffs against Khudsad Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat') on the allegation that in the property of the Masjid the Panchayat by demolishing the Ota attached to the well, and filling up the well constructed a road from south to north. It is the case that the Panchayat had no authority, but went on giving notices twice or thrice to the plaintiffs who also replied the notices all the times, denying the right of the Panchayat on the land of the Masjid. First of all it seems that the Panchayat objected to the constructi...
Tag this Judgment!Bansilal Narbheram Vs. State
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR35
S.L. Talati, J.1. The petitioner is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer R.I. for fifteen days in Criminal Case No. 1072 of 1980 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1981 which came to be dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda on 26-2-1981. Thereafter this petition is filed from jail.2. We have gone through the record and the evidence disclosed that the complainant-Dr. Chandrakant Govindlal was deprived of his Taperecorser on 27-10-1979. He is a person reflecting at No. 9, Shakti Krupa Society, R.V. Desai Road, Baroda. He bad left his house at about 9-00 A.M. for his dispensary. His wife was in the kitchen. When he returned at about 12-30 P.M. he learnt that from drawing room the tape-recorder was missing. He lodged a complaint. During investigation this tape-recorder came to be produced by witness ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Satellite Engineering Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR607(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. Unhappy as it makes us, we are obliged to decline to answer the question of law referred to us and to remit the matter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for reasons which will become evident presently. An important question as to whether the assessee-company was a priority industry within the meaning of the relevant entry in Sch. VI to the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood at the material time in the concerned assessment year (1970-71) was decided against the assessee-company by the Commissioner of Income-tax, who did so on an interpretation of the relevant entry of the Schedule and in the light of the material placed before the competent authority by the assessee. Oblivious of these two crucial dimensions and without evincing any awareness thereof, the decision was reversed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on totally irrelevant consideration by its order dated June 19, 1976, as per annex. C. That is why we will not be in a position to answer the two question referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Keshavlal Prabhudas Shah
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Guj)178; [1981]131ITR229(Guj)
Mankad, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-I, Ahmedabad, referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that an individual's interest in a partnership firm and his right to share profits/losses in the firm could be validly thrown into the hotchpot of the HUF of which the said individual was the kartan ?' 2. Assessee, Keshavlal Prabhudas Shah, had two sources of income. He had shares in partnership firms including a partnership firm running in the name and style of M/s. Bharat Oil Mill (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'). He had also a property from which he derived income. The assessee held shares in Narhari Marine Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'); but there is nothing on record to indicate t...
Tag this Judgment!Manibhai Shankerbhai Patel Vs. Swashray Construction Co. and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR312
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda, for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. On the service of the summons of that suit, respondent No. 2 filed an application under protest and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of Clause 16 of the partnership deed (mark-4/3,) That application was resisted by the the appellant by his reply Exhibit 26. The learned Judge, however, came to the conclusion that Clause 16 of the partnership deed was wide enough to take into its fold any and every dispute between the partners and accordingly directed stay of proceedings. It is against this order passed by the learned trial Judge that the present appeal is filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act.2. It transpires from the averments made in the plaint that a partnership firm under the name and style of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »