Gujarat Court August 1981 Judgments
Harshvadan Mangaldas Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ahmedabad, and Another.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR147(Guj)
MANKAD J. - The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the notice dated March 12, 1979, issued by the ITO under s. 148 read with s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), reopening his income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee held certain shares in private limited companies which were not quoted in the market. The assessee had sold the shares in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73 and disclosed capital loss in his return on the basis of the market value of those shares as on January 1, 1954. The value of the shares as on January 1, 1954, was worked out by an approved valuer and the assessee had submitted the valuers report which showed the method of valuation adopted by him. The ITO accepted the report of the valuer and computed capital loss on its basis. The assessment order was passed by the ITO on March 29, 1975. On March 12, 1979, the ITO with the previous approval of the Commissioner of Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rasiklal Chhaganlal Metha
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj193; (1981)GLR921
P.D. Desai, J.1. This Writ Petition arises out of the order dated September 9, 1980 made by the District Judge at Raikot in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 153 of 1980. The said application was presented in the District Court on August 27, 1980 by the Honorary Secretary of Kathiawar Nirashrit Balashram, Rajkol, under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for permission of the Courttogive a minor female child by name 'Krutika' in adoption to Mr. and Mrs. Schumann Herbert Jakob residing in West Germany. The application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant and of Mr. Jakob who declared to have adopted Hindu religion. The Court issued a general notice and invited objections. No objections came forth. The Court, on the material placed before it, inter alia, came to the conclusion that the institution of which the applicant was the Secretary, had scrutinized the proposal with regard to adoption quiry and found be b...
Tag this Judgment!Ravjibbai Bhikhabhai Patel Vs. Bilimora Nagar Palika
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj163; (1982)1GLR611
G.K. Mehta, J. 1. Since in these two applications the election of Bilimora Municipality and Bulsar Municipality held in Oct., 1980 have been challenged mainly on the ground of breach of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 or the Gujarat Municipalities Election Rules, 1964 pertaining to the preparation of electoral rolls, we intend to dispose of these two applications by this common order. Before we address ourselves to the contentions urged by the respective petitioners it would be profitable to set out a few relevant facts of both these applications, so that the contentions can be appreciated in proper context. 2. Petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 2964/80 are the defeated candidates in the elections of Bilimora Municipality and they seek to challenge the elections to wards Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the said Municipality. Respondents Nos, 4 to 6 are elected candidates from ward No, 2; respondents Nos. 7 to 9 are elected from ward No. 6; respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Navjivan Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT155(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In both these Special Civil Applications the main question that arises for consideration is whether the Government of India is under any obligation to levy what is known as 'additional duty' equivalent to excise duty on articles imported into India if a like article manufactured in India is subjected to excise duty. 2. The petitioners in Special Application No. 3176 of 1979 are two Textile Mills, one from Kalol in North Gujarat and another from Surat in Surat District and they contend that they are the consumers of the Viscose staple fibre, that is, a man-made fibre of cellulosic origin. The petitioners themselves are not manufacturers of Viscose staple fibre but they utilise the Viscose staple fibre manufactured by Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., the second respondent herein. The petitioners have filed this petition under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a representative capacity on behalf of themselves and on behalf of ot...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Secretary, Labour Social Welfare and Tribunal Dev ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2255; (1982)1GLR61
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. This matter has been heard by us because the Division Bench consisting of P. D. Desai and S.B. Majmudar, JJ. by their order dt. Oct. 18, 1979 came to the conclusion that, prima facie, respondents in this miscellaneous criminal application were guilty for their acts or omissions of civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 inasmuch as there was a prima facie case that there was a wilful disobedience of the judgment, direction and writ of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 806 of 1975, There was also a prima facie case according to the Division Bench that the respondents were guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act inasmuch as their conduct, acts or omissions throughout the proceedings were such as lowered or tended to lower the authority of this Court or interfered or tended to interfere with the administration of justice. Apart from the contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act...
Tag this Judgment!Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. National Dairy Development Board and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR395
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. At times an illustration can simplify a complicated question and can have a more telling effect than any other mode of communication. The present is an occasion to do so in order to bring into focus the real issue and in order to clearly hear the heart throbs of the real problem.2. Visualize a patient on his death bed. A Doctor (Dr. NDDB) has a medicine which will cure him, is prepared to administer it to the patient, and to save his life. Another Doctor (Dr. TIL) who was consulted earlier is not in a position to offer any effective medicine or save the life of the patient and confesses that such is the case. A learned Judge permits Doctor-NDDB to go ahead and save the life of the dying man whose life is precious to his family as also to the society. The Doctor who admittedly is neither willing to save the life, nor has the capacity to do so. Dr. TIL, objects to the order of the learned Judge and prefers an appeal on the ground that the patient had consulted him earl...
Tag this Judgment!Veljee Shamjee, Vs. Veljee Shamjee
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas107(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. Messrs. Veljee Shamji & Co., a registered partnership firm, filed Company Petition No. 5 of 1976, under s. 433 read with s. 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for winding up the Bhavnagar Vegetable Products Ltd. (for short 'the company'). The said company was incorporated in 24th November, 1945, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applicable to the then State of Bhavnagar. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and 25,000 ten per cent. cumulative redeemable preference shares of even value. The paid up capital of the company is Rs. 29,98,600 consisting of 17,492 equity shares of the value of Rs. 100 each and 12,494 cumulative redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100 each, full paid up. The redeemable preference shares were redeemable on par on 31st October, 1976, under the special resolution dated 24th June, 1967. There is also a sum of Rs. 575 received on forfeited shares. 2. The company wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sonal V. Shah and ors. Vs. Gujarat University and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Guj37; (1981)GLR934
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. These two petitions by different students but against the common respondents, viz. the Gujarat University and the State of Gujarat, can be conveniently taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment as the questions canvassed in these petitions and also at the time of hearing were almost conamon. With the concurrence of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. A few facts require to be closely noted in order to comprehend the controversy which is the basis of these two petitions. The respondent No. 1, the Gujarat University, is a corporate body having a perpetual succession and a common seal, capable of suing and liable to be sued by the said name. It is a body floated Under the Act which was Put on the statute books because it was found 'expedient' to establish and incorporate a teaching and affiliating University in the (then) Province of Bombay to be known as th...
Tag this Judgment!Arundhati Balkrishna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Guj)85; [1982]138ITR245(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. The assessee, Smt. Arundhati Balkrishna of Ahmedabad, whose main source of income is from interest on securities, income from dividends, and income from investment, etc., in her return of income filed in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 (sic) disclosed an income of Rs. 2,25,000. It appears that during the course of the relevant period the assessee had sold her 1/2 share in a parcel of land admeasuring 8,578 sq. yds. (her share being 4,289 sq yds.) situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. The lands fell within the purview of a draft town planning scheme. The sale transaction yielded a sum of Rs. 2,34,063 (1/2 of Rs. 4,68,125). The assessee assumed the posture that this land which had originally cost a petty sum of Rs. 21,445 and which upon being sold resulted in a profit equivalent to about ten times its cost price (i.e., Rs. 2,12,618) did not fall within the definition of 'capital asset' as defined by s. 2(14) of the I.T. Act of 1961, as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat-iii Vs. Bhavnagar Chemical Works (1 ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-17-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR61(Guj)
DIVAN C.J. - In this reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law in referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the condition precedent for the issue of notice under section 148 read with section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not fulfilled and the notice was without jurisdiction as there was no information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act, enabling the Income-tax officer to invoke such action reassessment ?'The facts leading to this reference are as follows:We are concerned in this reference with assessment year 1964-65, the relevant year of account being the calendar year 1963. The assessee before us is a limited company and it derives income from extraction of oil and manufacture of de-oiled cakes. It also seller extracted oil and de-oiled cakes. The company follows the mercantile system of account keeping. For the assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »