Gujarat Court June 1981 Judgments
Dhaneauriben and ors. Vs. M. Mulchandbhai Nagarji Sheth and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj264; (1981)GLR1156
Shukla, J. 1. The applicants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 38 of 1976 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Surat are the widow minor sons and minor daughters of the deceased, Vanmalibhai Ratanii Chauhan, who met with a fatal motor accident at about 3-30 o. m. on 14th December. 1975 near Dholikui, Varachha Road, Surat 2. Deceased Vanmalibhai started on his scooter with his son, Manoikumar, on pillion, from his residence. On crossing the gate of his residence, he approached the main road and had turned a little left to Proceed further when opponent No. 1, Ismailbhai Gulambhai, as a result of driving the Ambassador car bearing No. GJC 5628, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the scooter. The impact, caused damage to the car itself and a heavv damage to the scooter and further caused serious iniuries to Vanmalibhai. who succumbed 'to his iniuries on the verv dav at the Civil Hospital, Surat at about 5-00 p.m. The applicants alleged that the acciddent was cau...
Tag this Judgment!Hiraben Bhaga and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj267; (1982)1GLR190
Shukla, J. 1. Four Motor Accident Claims Petitions bearing Nos. 4 of 1974, 5 of 1974, 6 of 1974 and 7 of 1974, were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banaskantha District at Palanpur which arose out of an accident which occurred on 16-9-1973 on account of a collision between a jeep bearing No. GJF 348 and an S. T. bus resulting into Personal injuries to Thakkar Dalpatram Sundarji the driver of the jeep and the two other passengers of the jeep. Mir Gafurbhai Suleman and Mir Renchhodji Dhudaii Dodia and in a fatal accident to one Manji Bhaga. The jeep was driven by Thakkar Dalpatram Sundarji. President of the Deodar Taluka Panchayat and three other unfortunate victims noted above, were the passengers occupying the seats in the jeep behind the driver. Thakkar Dalpatram Sundarji had gone to village Chalve from Deodar and from there he had gone to village Luvana wherefrom he was returning when the collision occurred at about 6-45 P. M. on the Deodar-Jetada Road. When the jee...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal Amritlal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1981
Reported in: [1982]135ITR742(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has, at the instance of the assessee, referred the following two questions for our opinion under s.27 of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was the owner of the seized gold articles on each of the eight valuation dates (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cloud on ownership in the form of seizure did not reduce the value of the gold `if sold in the open market' for the purposes of wealth-tax assessments for the eight years ?' 2. Facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The I.T. authorities searched the premises of the assessee known as 'Shree Sadan' between November 18 and November 21,1964. In the course of the search, a large quantity of gold in various forms was recovered f...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Guj233; (1981)0GLR1103
Divan, C.J. 1. This review application has been filed by the State of Gujarat in respect of the orders passed by this Court on 9th June, 10th June, and 11th June, 1981 in Special Civil Application No. 748 of 1981.* On 9th June, 1981 we issued an ex parte ad interim mandatory injunction directing the State Government to issue a notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, extending the life of the Commission up to 24th June, 1981, and that notification was accordingly issued on 9th June, 1981. On 10th June, 1981 Mr. Vakil appearing for the State Government, urged arguments before us to persuade us to vacate the ad interim mandatory injunction which had been issued by us on 9th June, 1981. At the end of the hearing on 10th June, 1981 we indicated the order that we proposed to pass and we stated that reasons for the judgment would be pronounced on the next day, that is, 11th June, 1981 and on 11th June, 1981 we set out the reasons for rejecting the application of ...
Tag this Judgment!Consumer Education and Research Centre and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: (1981)22GLR712
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (herein-after refened to as the Act), discontinuing the Commission which the State Government had appointed on September 9, 1979 under Section 3 of the Act.2. It may be pointed out that the notification under Section 7 was issued on March 17, 1981 but the petition was filed on the same day earlier on 17th March 1981. The petition was filed on the basis that the Government was about to issue the said notification under Section 7 and in the petition as originally framed, the prayer was to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order permanently restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from winding up or obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the Commission. Prayer (B) was to quash and declaretde notification or order, i...
Tag this Judgment!Ratilal Dosabhai Tanna Vs. Abdul HuseIn Hasanali and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-22-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj266; (1982)2GLR140
S.L. Talatt, J.1. There is a house property bearing No. 453 on plot No. 12 at Rajkot and the property is known as 'Manoramya'. The plaintiffs are the brothers and the defendant wanted to sell the above property. The plaintiffs' case is that on 10-51968 an agreement was entered into between the parties by which the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rupees 1,10,000/-. That document is at Ext. 120. On that date two months' time was fixed for executing the sale deed. However, the defendant wanted a sum of Rs. 35,000/- which the defendant wanted to pay to the Co-operative Bank as the title-deeds were lying with the bank and the defendant had borrowed money. The plaintiffs' further case is that the defendant approached for the above sum and they were not willing to part with the sum of Rs. 35,000/- as two months' time was fixed initially for executing the document. The defendant thereupon agreed to execute the sale deed at the earliest and, therefore, the sum of Rs. 35,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Vs. AshiwIn M. Patel
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR566(Guj)
Manjad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has at the instance of the REvenue referred the following questions for our opinion u/s 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACt) : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the REvenues contention that the cost of acquisition of shares under consideration was not nil for the purposes of determining the capital against (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the |Tribunal, was correct in taking the cost of acquision of the shares at their, market value on the dates these were thrown into common hotchpot (3) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative and to question No. 23 is in the negative, what should be taken as the o its of acquisition of shares under consideration?' 2. Facts leading to this references may be briefly stated as under. The assessee is a Hindu undivi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jitendra Ramniklal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: [1986]162ITR371(Guj)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. The question referred to us in this reference is one which does not pose any problem. Upon the mere facts being stated, the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal must be confirmed and the reference answered accordingly. The question is as to whether the agricultural land situate within the area specified by the Central Government by an appropriate notification not being more than 8 kilometers from the local limits of any municipality falls within the definition of 'capital asset' as embodied in section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the material time in the assessment year 1972-73. Clause(b) of Section 2(14)(iii) provides the agricultural land within any area within such distance would fall within the definition of 'capital asset', provided the Central Government, having regard to the extent of and scope for urbanination of that area, and other relevant considerations, specifies the area by a notification in the Official Gazette. Thus, th...
Tag this Judgment!Urmila Ratilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR797(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1969-70, the ITO, Ward No. 1, Porbandar, noticed a cash credit of Rs. 25,000 in the assessee's books of account which was introduced on January 8, 1968. The assessee, who carries on transport business under the name and style of Ramesh Transport, was called upon to explain the nature and source of this cash credit. She did submit her explanation. The ITO, however, did not accept her explanation and made an addition of Rs. 25,000 to the total income of the assessee for assessment year 1969-70. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while upholding the view taken by the AAC, took into consideration additional evidence in the shape of bank and co-operative societies' certificates/statements produced by the revenue at the time of the hearing of the appeal. An objection was raised on behalf of the assessee against the production of additional evidence i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Orient Prospecting Co.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR301(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following three questions for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses incurred on messing and tea are not in the nature of entertainment which could be disallowed under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not entertaining the additional grounds raised by the Revenue at the hearing of the appeal (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no adequate ground was brought out to condone the delay in filing the additional grounds ?' 2. Out of three question ref...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »