Gujarat Court August 1981 Judgments
H.H. Maharani Vijaykunverba Saheb Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Guja ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR212; [1982]136ITR18(Guj)
Desai, J.1. Maharaja Mahendrasinghji of Morvi owned extensive property situate in India as well as in England. The property yielded considerable income. He died possessed of those properties. He had executed two distinct wills, one of the property in India, another of property situate in England. The will governing the property situate in India was executed on October 31, 1953. A codicil to the said will was executed on February 9, 1956. The will in respect of the property situate in England was executed on June 4, 1954. Under each will the late Maharaja had appointed different executors. The assessee, widow of the deceased Maharaja, was amongst the executors appointed of the property situate in India and is now the sole surviving executrix in respect of such property. She was, however, not appointed as an executrix in respect of the property situate in England. 2. For the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, the previous years being the financial years ended on March 31, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Kantu Chhagan Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1110; (1982)1GLR464
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The appellant was charged for having committed the murder of his wife on the night of 11/12th Dec. 1978 at his hutment situate in Koyli Khadi Zopadpatti outside Kamela Darwaja, Surat The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, convicted him Under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused feeling aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence has preferred the present appeal.2. The prosecution case against the appellant, briefly stated, runs as under :One Bai Dhanu, daughter of Bhagu Khushal, was married to the appellant about four years before the unfortunate incident took place. After marriage she lived with the appellant in his hutment. They lived a happy married life for about one year. Thereafter it appears that the appellant developed intimacy with one Manjula and began to ill-treat his wife, the deceased. The appellant was keen to obtain a divorce but the deceased was not prepared to obl...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanbhai Trikamlal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)139; [1982]135ITR750(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. An assessee impressed an item of property belonging to him with the character of HUF. Thereupon a question arose as to what would be the extent of the interest of the assessee on the converted property for the purpose of valuation for inclusion in the net wealth in his wealth-tax return. The question arises n respect of the assessment year 1972-73. Similar question arose in the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Similar question having been raised in all the three references and the same will be disposed of by this common judgment. The question arose in the context of s. 4(1A)(b) read with clause (d) of the Explanation. The said provision, so far as material for the purpose of this matter, requires to be quoted in order to understand the controversy : '4. (1A) Where, in the case of an individual being a member of a Hindu undivided family, any property having been the separate property of the individual has at any time after the 31st day December, 1969, been converted b...
Tag this Judgment!Gunvantlal Keshavlal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Guj)95; [1982]134ITR533(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has, at the instance of the accountable person, referred the following two questions to us for our opinion under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'): '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in including Rs. 20,000 being the value of 1/4th share in the self-occupied house of the HUF of which the deceased was a coparcener in the estate 2. Whether, in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty payable was not liable to be deducted from the total value of the estate ?' 2. Out of these two questions one question, namely, question No. 2, is directly covered by a decision of this court in Smt. Shantaben Narottamdas v. CED : [1978]111ITR365(Guj) . Following the said decision, this question, namely, question No. 2 shall have to be answered in the affirmative...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Senatkumar Jayantilal. (Wtr. No. 13 of ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]135ITR180(Guj)
THAKKAR J. - A penalty was imposed against an assessee in respect of the assessment year 1967-68, on the ground that there was a delay in filing the wealth-tax return. The assessee in fact had filed the return in his individual capacity within the prescribed time. Admittedly, there was no delay in the filing of the return in his individual capacity. Subsequently, in view of some judicial pronouncement, the assessee was advised to file a separate return in respect of the ancestral property which had come into his hands which he was so far including in his individual returns as if it was his self-acquired property. It was realised that under the law it was open to him to treat the ancestral property as property belonging to the HUF and to exclude it from his individual returns and file a separate return on behalf of the HUF. That is why he revised the original return filed by him which was filed within time, by excluding the ancestral property from his net wealth and filed a fresh return...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Digvijaysinhji Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Rajkot
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-12-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR313(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee involves an interpretation of s. 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in the light of the following facts. 2. Assessment years under reference are the assessment years 1971-72 and 1973-74. The assessee's net wealth for these years included the assets which were exempt from payment of wealth-tax under cls. (xv), (xvi), (xxiii) and (xxv) of s. 5(1) of the Act. The value of the assets covered by cls. (xv) and (xvi) of s. 5(1) was Rs. 1,16,600, Rs. 1,27,338 and Rs. 1,28,548 for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively. These assets were owned by the assessee from a date prior to March 1, 1970. The assessment year 1971-72 and Rs. 3,28,134 in the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee also owned units worth Rs. 5,000 in the Unit Trust of India in the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The value of the shares held in the Indian companies and units in the Unit Trust of India...
Tag this Judgment!Nirma Chemical Works and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT617(Guj)
Divan, C.J. 1. The petitioners are concerned with five different units all manufacturing detergent powder. This article, detergent powder, is liable to excise duty under Item No. 15AA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Section 3 of that Act. The petitioners are carrying on manufacturing activity at Vatva in Ahmedabad District, and according to the petitioners, the goods manufactured by the petitioners' firms are exempted from payment of excise duty under notification No. 101/66 dated June 17, 1966. Their further contention is that since the goods are totally exempted from excise duty, by virtue of notification No. 111/78 they are also exempt from taking out a licence for the manufacture of detergent powder. The first respondent herein is the Union of India. The second respondent is the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda Collectorate. The third respondent is the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The third respondent is the Superintendent of Central Excise ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Patel Family Trust (Proprietor of Nirma Chemical Works) and ors. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)1GLR670
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. The petitioners are concerned with five different units all manufacturing detergent powder. This article, detergent powder, is liable to excise duty under Item No 15AA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Section 3 of that Act. The petitioners are carrying on manufacturing activity at Vatva in Ahmedabad District, and, according to the petitioners, the goods manufactured by the petitioner's firms are exempted from payment of excise duty under notification No. 101/66 dated June 17, 1966. Their further contention is that since the goods are totally exempted from excise duty, by virtue of notification No. 111/78 they are also exempt from taking out a licence for the manufacture of detergent powder. The first respondent herein is the Union of India. The second respondent is the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda Collectorate. The third respondent is the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The fourth respondent is Superintendent of Central Excise...
Tag this Judgment!Kartikey V. Sarabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)132; [1982]138ITR425(Guj)
Thakkar, J. 1. With market rate of interest being in the neighbourhood of 15% a private company engaged in business, decided to reduce the fact value of its 3% non-cumulative preference shares from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 50 (initially it was reduced to Rs. 500 and later on to only Rs. 50) and paid off Rs. 950 per share to its shareholders. This was done on the ground that there capital was in excess of the wants of the company. The assessee held 3% non-redeemable preference shares in this private limited company which were purchased at Rs. 420 per share. Thus, the assessee got back Rs. 950 for the share purchased at Rs. 420. When the first reduction took place the assessee who had paid Rs. 420 had already got Rs. 500 and the share cost to him was Rs. 80 per share. On subsequent paying off of Rs. 450 by reducing the face value from Rs. 500 to Rs. 50, he got back Rs. 450 per share of which his cost was Rs. 80. Under these circumstances the question giving rise to this petition which is formula...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Welath-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. H.H. Maharaja F.P. Gaekwad
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)158; [1983]144ITR304(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), has referred to us for our opinion the following three questions under s. 27(1) 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 law in holding that the immovable property known as Kunj Bungalow was not the property of the assessee and he held the some on behalf of the firm of M/s. Gaekwad & Co. Baroda, at the relevant valuation date? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee continued to be the legal owner of the immovable properties known as lay Mahal Place and Makapura palace on the releveant valuation dates and rightly assessed to welath-tad in respect of their market values which were admittedly Rs. 1,07,75,213 and Rs. 16,95,615, respectively? and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant's claim that having agre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »