Gujarat Court April 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Cellulose Products of India ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-19-1984
Reported in: [1985]151ITR499(Guj)
Poti, C.J.1. Quite an important and interesting question arises for decision in this case. It is interesting because several High Courts in India have expressed differing views not only on the scope of certain provisions of the I.T. Act, but also on the scope of decisions on those provisions rendered by the Supreme Court. It is important because the question which we are called upon to answer is one which will have frequent application before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question concerns the scope of jurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to permit matters to be raised before it when these were not (raised) before the AAC. 2. Though there are earlier pronouncements of this court on this question (CIT v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. : [1969]74ITR254(Guj) followed by CIT v. Steel Cast Corporation : [1977]107ITR683(Guj) , it is the expression of views by two different Benches in two references that has led to the reference of the question to the Full Bench. Chief Jus...
Chhotalal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR858; [1984]150ITR276(Guj)
P.S. Pott, C.J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee, a registered firm and relates to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 the corresponding accounting years being those ending on June 30, 1969 and March 25, 1970. One Shri C. S. Virani was partner of the applicant firm and he joined the partnership representing the HUF of which he was the 'karta'. For the two accounting years in question, Shri C. S. Virani maintained two accounts with the partnership - one his own individual account and the other of the HUF which he represented as 'karta'. The firm paid interest on advances made other than the capital by the HUF represented by Shri C. S. Virani and also advances made by Shri Virani from his own personal account. The interest so paid on individual funds for the assessment year 1970-71 was Rs. 1,30,594 and interest paid on account of the HUF was the sum of Rs. 36,482. These payments were disallowed by the ITO who relied on s. 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for adoptin...
Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR251(Guj)
Poti, C.J.1. The scope of s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been examined in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers : [1971]82ITR50(SC) , and the Income-tax officer in seeking to exercise the power of rectification under s. 154 cannot travel beyond such scope as indicated in the decision. A 'mistake and apparent on the record' must be an obvious and a patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on which there may be conceivably be two opinions. Similarly, a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be said to be a 'mistake apparent on the record'. Mere fact that a process of computation is involved in determining the income or the tax liability does not make it a debatable point, however involved the computation may be. 2. A Division Bench of this court felt that reference to a larger Bench was called for and, therefore, directed such reference in view of the approach made in the judgment of this court in Addl. CIT v. Bharat Vi...
Prahladbhai Ambalal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1642; (1984)2GLR1380(GJ)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of revision applications, a short question has been referred for our consideration. The said question reads as follows-Whether, after the report of the public analyst gets superseded by the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory who examines the part of the sample of food article collected under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is open to the accused to plead that if there is any variance between the aforesaid two reports, the prosecution must explain the said variance or otherwise fail.2 to 5. * * * * *6. Before embarking upon the consideration of the question posed for our decision, it will be advantageous to have a bird's eye view of the relevant provisions of the statute governing the field. The Act has been enacted by the Parliament with a view to making provisions for prevention of adulteration of food. Section 2(v) defines 'food' to mean any article u...
Chamar Vashram Chhaganbhai Vs. Parmar Suresh Ramji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR47
A.S. Qureshi, J.1. The petitioner herein is the father of respondent No. 2 Deval alias Devuben, a minor of 16 years. Mr. B.M. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 14-3-84 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, awarding custody of the minor Devuben to her husband Parmar Sureshbhai Ramjibhai, respondent No. 1 herein. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that although Devuben is 16 years old, she is yet a minor being below 18 and hence the petitioner-father is entitled to her custody and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, Mehsana is illegal and deserves to be set aside. This submission of Mr. Gupta is not tenable and must be rejected because, although Devuben is a minor, she is the wife of respondent No. 1 who is entitled to the custody of his wife who has attained the age of 18 years although she has not attained majority within the meaning of Indian Majority Act. The husband of a minor w...
Baroda Municipal Corporation Vs. Patel Dahyabhai Gordhanbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)1GLR113
S.A. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge. Baroda dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree of the trial court, the present appellant who is the original defendant has filed this Second Appeal. The respondents are the original plaintiffs who filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division. Baroda contending that they are in possession of wooden cabin the land survey No. 420 of village Savand, Dist: Baroda. That the town planning scheme was under progress during that time. However, the appellant municipality save a notice under Section 260 of the Bombay Provinicial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. 59 of 1949) hereinafter referred to as 'Act') dated 24-10-69 to the plaintiff No. 6 informing that they have constructed the cabin without prior permission of the Corporation and being against the rules and by-laws the plaintiffs were required to show cause as to why the said cabin should not be demolished. The plaintiffs ga...
Chamanbhai Gangaram Vankar Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1881
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The question posed for consideration of the Full Bench pertains to the correct interpretation of the words 'Official Seal of the registered medical practitioner' as employed by Rule 4(1) of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination Blood Test) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Blood Test Rules'), framed under Section 143(2)(w) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act). Whether the concerned registered Medical Practitioner who collects blood from the accused has to use his own seal, if any, or whether he can utilise the official seal of the hospital to which he is attached, is the vexed question which has to be answered on the interpretation of the aforesaid words employed in the last sentence of Rule 4 quoted above.2. Before we proceed to grapple with the aforesaid question, it would be advantageous to refer to the background facts which has led to the present reference to the Full Bench.3. The applicant in the pr...
Steel Pipe and Fabrication Works Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)2GLR1517
S.A. Shah, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration against the State of Gujarat and its officers to the effect that the suit land bearing Survey Nos. 56/1 and 56/2/A of village Motiwada, taluka Pardi, district Bulsar leased to the plaintiff by private owner for the purpose of quarry are private khata lands and that the rules framed by the State of Gujarat, namely the Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 are not applicable to such lands and that the plaintiff is not required to apply to the defendant No. 2 for grant of quarry lease as per the said rules and he was not liable to pay any amount by way of royalty fees or otherwise and is also not liable to any criminal action for breach of the said rules and it be further declared that the Criminal Case No. 1936 of 1971 and 519 of 1972 against the plaintiffs partners pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi be quashed directing the defendants to withdraw the said criminal...
Songadh Group Gram Panchayat, Songadh and ors. Vs. Ranianlal Ishverlal ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj140
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. Section 178 (1) (ii) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, empowers the Gram Panchayat and a Nagar Panchayat, subject to any general or special order (including an order fixing the minimum and maximum rates of a tax or fee) which the State Government, may make in this behalf to levy octroi tax on animals or goods or both brought within the gram or nagar for consumption, use or sale therein. R. 3 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964, deals with 'procedure for levying tax and fee' and since the scope of the rule and its application are matters in controversy here, we extract the abovesaid rule:'3. Procedure for levying tax or fee. Before deciding to levy a tax or fee every panchayat shall observed the following procedure, namely:_ (a) It shall, by resolution passed at its meeting, select a tax or fee which if propose to levy and in such resolution shall specify the rate at which it is to be levied.(b) For the purpose of inviting objections ...
Shah Jitendra Nanalal Vs. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Guj145; (1984)2GLR1001
P.S. Poti, C.J.1. This matter comes up before the Full Bench on the following order of reference by our learned brother P. D. Desai and R. C. Mankad, jj'The papers of !he case to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for f,onstitution of a larger Bench to consider the question whether or not there is any material and substantial distinction between the provisions of sub-section (2), S. 7 of the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 (since repealed) and Clause (b) of subscc. (1) of S. 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulalion) Act. 1976 and whether, therefore, a conditional decree for specific performance, subject to the condition of the plaintiff ob,aining exemption from the State Government under Clause (b) of sub-see. (1) of S. 20A the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 can or cannot be passed, following the decisions of the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 1174 of 1968 decided on April 25/26, 1974 and First Appeal No. 251, of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »