Gujarat Court June 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-i Vs. Kodandas Chanchlomal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Guj)346; [1985]155ITR273(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1.The assessee is a HUF. It sold a residential property at Veraval for Rs. 1,02,000 and earned capital gains of Rs. 79,000. Within two years of the sale of the property, the assessee constructed a house for Rs. 96,500. This house consists of a ground floor, a first floor and a second floor. The area of the ground floor is 320 sq. yards, and the combined area of the first and second floors is 380 sq. yards. The assessee leased out the ground floor and used the first and second floors for personal residence. The assessee claimed reduction of Rs. 57,680 under s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the plea that part of the capital gains in respect of the sale of Veraval property was used for construction of a new residential property. 2. The ITO rejected the assessee's claim. In appeal, the AAC allowed the claim of the assessee since in his opinions s. 54 not provide that the new house property should be exclusively used for residential purposes of the assessee. In so concluding, t...
Tag this Judgment!Uganda Industries Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Guj)341; [1986]158ITR567(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessee is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of running a ginning and pressing factory and an oil mill. The assessment year under reference is 1970-71, the previous year being Samvat year 2025, which commenced on October 22, 1968, and ended on November 9, 1969. It should be noted that the Tribunal in the statement of case has stated that the previous year ended on October 30, 1970, which is patently erroneous. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the year under reference, the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee had a cash credit account with the Bank of Baroda. The assessee used to take loans from the bank by hypothecation of its goods. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, called for the details of the goods hypothecated with the bank as on certain dates and cross-checked this information with the books of account of the assessee. He found that on March 7, 1969, the assessee had hypothecated 200 bales of cotton valued at Rs. 1,45...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Bajpaee Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1261; (1986)ILLJ309Guj
Ahmadi, J.1. (His Lordship after stating the facts, further observed) : 6. It was next submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that before the revision application was disposed of by the State Government, the petitioner ought to have been given a personal hearing. By not giving him a personal hearing, submitted counsel, the State Government had committed a breach of rule of natural justice which vitiated the impugned order of dismissal. Section 27A of the Bombay Police Act provides that the State Government may, suo motu, or on an application made to it, call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceeding of any subordinate police officer for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer, and may, at any time, confirm, modify or reverse and such order, impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhanced the penalty imposed by such order, as m...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwambhar Hemandas Vs. Narendra Fethalal Gajjar
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Guj153; (1986)1GLR409
ORDER1. This Revision Application is filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent under S. 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The lower Courts have come to the conclusion that under S. 12(3)(b) the petitioner tenant has deposited all the rent on the first date of hearing and also continued to regularly deposit the rent during the pendency of the suit as well as during the pendency of the appeal. For coming to the conclusion that the rent is payable by month, he has held that the tenant was not required to pay taxes. However, this finding is clearly contrary to the plaintiffs own evidence. The learned appellate Judge has observed in para II of his judgment that 'the plaintiff does say on oath that rent of Rs. 19.50 is inclusive of taxes'. In view of this admission and finding that the amount of Rs. 19.50 includes taxes, the conclusion of the lower Court that rent is payable by month, is clearly untenable. The taxes are payable by year ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Central India Builders
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: [1985]156ITR453(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner, the following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the messing expenses were not disallowable under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that only a sum of Rs. 3,000 should be disallowed under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. We need not set out the facts and circumstances elaborately in which these questions have been raised. Suffice it to say for the present purposes that when these questions were referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal, the provision under which the question of admissibility of entertainment expenses arose was as it then stood as Sub-section (2B) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act. It should be recalled that by Section 10 o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikhabhai Narsibhai (Power of Attorney Holder of Vallabhbhai Parshott ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR395
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. By a lease deed dated 13th July 1917 land bearing Survey No. 616/2 (A.O.G. 23) and Survey No. 630/3 (A.O.G. 19) of Adajan was given on lease to Edalji Hormasji, the grandfather of the respondent for a period of five years for tapping toddy trees at the rate of Rs. 3/- per tree. It appears that after the efflux of time prescribed in the rent note, the grandfather of the respondent continued in occupation of the aforesaid two Survey Numbers. There is no evidence, to the effect that the land-owners had obtained possession of the land, from the respondent's grandfather till his death. At the relevant point of time when the respondent made an application after the tillers' day, that is, 1st April 1957, for being declared the deemed purchaser and for fixation of the purchase price, the name of the present respondent was mutated in the revenue records as the occupant of the land.2. The respondent made an application under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural L...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Land Organisation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: [1987]168ITR527(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of commission of Rs. 30,000 was disallowable under the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Since this question is covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Chhotalal & Co. v. CIT : [1984]150ITR276(Guj) , this and other companion matters have been placed for disposal before us. A short but interesting question has been raised as to what is the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition to Appeal (Civil) No. 7736/1981 preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad, against the decision of this court in CIT v. Sajjanraj Divanchand [1980] 126 ITR 654, which in the opinion of the Division Bench of this court consisting of Thakkar C.J. (as he then was) and Mankad J. required recon...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indradaman Amratlal
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Guj)215; [1985]156ITR493(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 35,456 paid to Shri Amratlal Hargovandas, Hindu undivided family account account, by the individual capacity could not be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Since this question is covered by the decision of Full Bench of this court in Chhotalal & Co. v. CIT : [1984]150ITR276(Guj) , this and other companion matters have been placed for disposal before us. A short but interesting question has been raised as to what is the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court rejecting Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil) No. 773681 preferred by the Commissioner, against the decision of this court in CIT v. Sajjanraj Divanchand [1980] 126 ITR 654. which in the opinion of the Division Bench of this court cons...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Yogendrasingh Sahebsingh Varma
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR905
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of our High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2496 of 1981. Respondent here in had prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugnedorderdt.5-2-1975passedbythe Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Bhavnagar, and for directing the appellants herein to make payment of the emoluments for the intervening period as claimed by him. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition granting the prayer made by the 1st respondent herein. It is as against this judgment that the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed. Mr. R.M. Vin, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the decree in favour of the respondent does not in any way specify as to the payment of salary from the date of the suit uptil the date of the decree that is from 3-9-1968 to 15-3-1971, and hence the discretion as to the payment of such salary for the said period should ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavnagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M.M. Joshi, Registrar, C ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas318(Guj); (1985)2GLR1087
A.H. Ahmadi, J. 1. The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the power to grant exemption under section 161 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), can be exercised retrospectively. In order to answer this question, a few relevant facts may be stated. The petitioner, a co-operative bank, registered under the provisions of the Act, had advanced loans to respondents Nos. 4 to 6 which are service and credit societies also registered under the Act. The said three societies were directed to be wound up under section 107(3) of the Act and the petitioner bank was appointed the liquidator of the said societies. Under sub-section (1) of section 114 of the Act, the winding-up proceedings of a society have to be closed within three years from the date of the order of the winding-up, unless the period is extended by the Registrar which shall not exceed four years in the aggregate. It further provides that immediately after...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »