Gujarat Court October 1985 Judgments
Govindbhai Mujljibhai Parmar and ors. Vs. J. Mahapatra Dy. Police Comm ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR277
ORDERYou Unarmed P.C. Shri Govindbhai Muljibhai Parmar B. No. 3838, Unarmed P.C. Shri Ramanbhai Keshavlal Parmar B. No. 6202, and unarmed P.C. Shri Harshadkumar Ratilal Raval B. No. 7012, serving at Gomtipur Police Station have on 7-5-1985 at about 5.30 A.M. on the Ajod Dairy Road, near Bhagyodaya Estate, Rakhial, Smashan Gruh beaten the complainant Shri Rajubhai Manilal aged 23 years residing at Radheshyam Society, Bungalow No. 48 Odhav and his father and other persons in a drunken condition and caused them injury and broken the larry gallas and committed robbery which is a shameful act of serious nature which is not befitting to a Police Officer. For the said acts, important witnesses are Jawans of Military who are engaged in the national defence who are not likely to be available easily as witnesses. Looking to the present disturbed condition of the city, regular Departmental Inquiry is not reasonably practicable. Therefore,I.J. Mahapatra, Deputy Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR485
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioner, a retired Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, has filed this petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Office Memoranda 'O.M.' for short collectively marked Annexure 'B' to the petition to the extent to which eligibility for liberalised pension scheme is made applicable only to those government servants who retired on or after March 31, 1985. The contention of the petitioner is that the eligibility criterion for liberalised pension scheme the government servant should have retired on or after March 31, 1985 in the memoranda Annexure 'B' violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and consequently the words 'who retired on or after 31 st March 1985' used in the said O.M. should be struck down.2. Petitioner who retired as Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) and Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat-I on September 30, 1984 was a Central Government Servant and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Urmilaben Champaklal Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: (1986)2GLR1101
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. The petitioner who is the wife of detenu Champaklal Manilal Jaiswal, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of habeas corpus or any other suitable writ, order or direction against the respondents directing them to set at liberty the said detenu after the detention order is quashed and set aside by this Court.2. The detenu has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Ordinance, 1985, ('the Ordinance' for short). The order of detention is at annexure 'A' to the petition. It is dated 11-7-1985. It was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City. The said order recites that the detaining authority is satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order covered under the Ordinance, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said detenu be detained. The aforesaid detention order has ...
Tag this Judgment!Chotumal Sugansingh Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR688
R.J. Shah, J.1. The petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) in the above petition has challenged the order of detention dated 5th August 1985 passed against him under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Ordinance, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The grounds of detention, Annexure 'C, which also bear the same date and which were in Gujarati were supplied to the detenu in English rendering of the said grounds so far as is relevant is as follows:You are carrying on an anti-social activity by stocking, possessing and selling illicit liquor in Chamanpura area of the City of Ahmedabad. In this connection, offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 have been registered against you as stated below and in respect of which you had been arrested. (Serially 7 offences have been listed)You are therefore known as a person dealing it illicit liquor.Because of your such activity an atmosphere...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Brothers
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-25-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR249(Guj)
Kapadia, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question for opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,254 added by the Income-tax Officer as the income of the assessee ?' 2. The facts leading to the present reference briefly stated are as follows : 3. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The assessee is doing business of manufacturing of spindles and machinery spare parts which are used in textile mills. During the course of assessment proceedings, it came to the notice of the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had alleged to have made some purchases of pig iron, scrap and spindle steels from M/s. Alwin Textile Traders, M/s. Brijesh Engineering Products, M/s. Shanker Textile Industries and M/s. Comet Commercial Corporation of Ahmedabad. The assessee was required to produce the parties with their books of account and passbooks, etc., for examination and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganga Charity Trust Fund
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Guj)365; [1986]162ITR612(Guj)
Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee, Ganga Charity Trust Fund, is a charitable trust. The relevant assessment years are 1971-72 and 1972-73. In the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 76,972 by way of deduction as an amount applied for charitable purposes under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'thejAct'). In that year, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The Income-tax Officer refused the deduction whereupon the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the payment of income-tax was merely an appropriation of income and could not, therefore, be allowed by way of deduction. In further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee attempted to raise an alternative contention, but the Tribunal did not permit it. Since that alternative contention is not raised in the question referr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shantilal Rugnathji Desai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-23-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR245(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee, an individual, was allowed development rebate in the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 in the sum of Rs. 10,942, Rs. 8,642 and Rs. 13,327 respectively in respect of plant and machinery installed during the relevant previous years. The assessee, however, converted his proprietary business into a partnership business with effect from April 1, 1971. Since conversion, the business has been carried on in the name and style of Billimoria Electricity Supply Company. He became one of the partners of that firm having 20 paise share in a rupee in the profit and loss thereof. In the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer learned about the conversion of the proprietary business into a partnership one, whereupon he invoked section 34(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which provides as under : '(b) If any ship, machinery or plant is sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee to any person at any time before the expiry of e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kutch Oil and Allied Industries Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Guj)37; [1987]163ITR237(Guj)
Kapadia, J.1. The following two questions are referred to us for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial company under section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, and entitled to benefit of concessional rate of tax 2. Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the activity of the assessee of pulverising bentonite was an industry within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, and hence the assessee was an industrial company is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record ?' Short facts leading to this reference are as under : 2. The assessment year is 1974-75. The assessee is a company carrying on business in purchase and sale of copra, oil cake as well as bentonite. It also earned during the relevant accounting period pulverising charges of bentonite from Kutch Mineral of Mandvi. The company claimed before the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmichand Vardhaji Vs. Collector of Banaskantha and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-21-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR476
N.H. Bhatt, J.1. This is a petition by an auction purchase at an auction sale held by the concerned Mamlatdar of Deesa on 23-5-79. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 4000/- per acre. There were nine bidders that had participated in the auction sale, but the petitioner's bid being the highest, the Mamlatdar acting for the Assistant Collector accepted the bid and at that time 1/4th of the amount was actually deposited by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was orally told by the Mamlatdar that the remainder of the amount, i.e. 3/4th of the amount, was to be paid on confirmation of the sale. Then one fine morning, the Deputy Collector ex-parte took a decision at Annexure-A on 22-1-80 holding the auction proceedings as bad because of certain irregularities. The petitioner's appeal No. 4 of 1980 to the Collector, Palanpur came to be dismissed by the Collector by his order, Annexure-b, dated 1-4-80. The petitioner carried the matter to the Special Secretary by filling a revision ap...
Tag this Judgment!Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Guj)208; [1986]162ITR496(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee is a co-operative milk producers' union which runs a dairy in the town of Anand. It receives assistance by way of grant-in-aid from the State Government, the Central Government, as well as certain international agencies. For the assessment year 1966-67 it claimed a loss of Rs. 11,32,333 under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), out of which Rs. 1,11,931 pertained too non-existing stock. It appears that the assessee had not taken an inventory of the stock for almost eighteen years immediately preceding the resolution dated September 24, 1966. That resolution shows that an inventory was taken in September, 1965, for the first time after eighteen years and it was found that certain stock noted in the stock register was non-existent and it claimed a deduction in respect thereof under section 32(1)(iii) of the Act. This claim was rejected by the authorities below. 2. The assessee claimed development rebate as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »