Gujarat Court June 1985 Judgments
Ramjibhai Dahyabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR540(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessment year under reference is 1970-71, the corresponding previous year being calendar year 1969. The assessee is an individual and he purchased a field bearing S. No. 624, admeasuring 67,716 sq. yards situate within the revenue limits of village Dudhraj in Surendranagar district jointly with one Shri Pranlal D. Pancholi for a sum of Rs. 6,400 from Jhala Ladhaji Deepsangji and his sons by a registered deed of conveyance of July 8, 1948. When they purchased the said land, it was in the possession of the mortgagee of the vendors who were cultivating the same. The assessee and the said Shri Pranlal Pancholi being virtually vendees of the right of redemption, filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage in which a preliminary decree was made on April 24, 1951, while the final decree was passed on November 20, 1952. There is no clear evidence to show as to what steps were taken by these vendee-decree holders for obtaining possession of the land after the final decree...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Govindram Topandas (by Executor to Esta ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]159ITR223(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. Since in both these references, the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue is of identical nature, though the questions which have been raised are slightly in different terms, and since they arise out of the same facts but pertaining to two sets of different assessment years, namely, 1961-62 to 1963-64, in Wealth-tax Reference No. 5 of 1977 and 1964-55 to 1968-69 in Wealth-tax reference No. 19 of 1976, we intend to dispose of both these references by this common judgment. 2. A few relevant facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the dispute sought to be raised by the respective questions. 3. The assessee (deceased since October, 1983) purchased two pieces of land bearing S. Nos. 225/2 and 225/4, each of them admeasuring acres 5-18 gunthas situate within the city limits of Jamnagar in December, 1956. The assessee paid Rs. 1,000 for each of the said survey numbers. It appears that the State Government acquired S. No. 225/2 wholly while out of the land of S. No...
Tag this Judgment!Project Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and anr. Vs. Khemsingh ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR1373; (1986)ILLJ390Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This batch of Special Civil Applications arises out of Recovery Application No. 189 of 1982 and others. In these petitions, the Project Manager now headed by Deputy General Manager, Kalol Koba Road, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad and Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The Bhavan, Dehradun, are petitioners. The respondents are truck drivers of the employer, the second petitioner herein. The Recovery Applications were filed under the provisions of S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In one set of applications, the respondents therein are employed as truck drivers with the second petitioner. The second petitioner asked them to perform the duties as Heavy Truck Driver (hereinafter referred to as 'HTD'). According to the petitioners, the HTD is a higher post and has higher pay scale. The respondents contended in the recovery applications that since they were asked to drive heavy vehicles and since they have actually driven heavy v...
Tag this Judgment!Kalol Nagarpalika Vs. Shah Priyavadan Bhailalbhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)1GLR352
B.K. Mehta, J.1. This rule has been issued against the order of Civil Judge (J.D.) Kalol, dated May 26, 1981 on an application Ex. 19 filed by the opponent-plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 68 of 1981 for declaration that the suspension order passed against the opponent-plaintiff was bad in law and void. By the said application, it was contended that the suit was not properly defended since the written statement and the affidavit in support thereof were signed by the Chief Officer, who was not a competent authority. The learned Judge directed that unless the Chief-Officer of the petitioner-defendant produces the necessary authority authorising him to depend the suit before he signed the Vakalatnama, the pleadings would not be taken on record.2. I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the learned Judge is bad in law and void as he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction to accept the pleadings, of the petitioner-defendant-Municipality. The reasons are obvious. Section 5 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Aslambhai Alias Tunde Hasubhai Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police and o ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-23-1985
Reported in: (1987)2GLR801
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The petitioner, Aslambhai alias Tunde Hasubhai Shaikh, has challenged by this Special Criminal Application, his detention under an order (Annexure 'A' to the petition), dated 28-1-1986, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), on several counts, and has prayed for setting aside the said order of detention and set him at liberty forthwith.2. The facts, shortly stated, are as under:The petitioner, as stated above, was detained under the Act, vide order of the Police Commissioner dated 28-1-1986, and was supplied with the grounds of detention, even dated, in jail. A copy of the grounds of detention is to be found at Annexure 'B' to the petition. The State of Gujarat, respondent No. 2, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, by order dated 6-2-1986, approved the order of detention passed by the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Liberal Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-20-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Guj)154; [1986]158ITR520(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. The following question is referred to us at the instance of the assessee for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law. in holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly imposed on the registered firm even when it had paid excess advance tax ?' 2. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the dispute between the assessee and the Revenue in this reference. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69 and the assessee was required to file a return of income by June 30, 1968. The said return was filed on November 10, 1970, though in the statement of the case, it has been stated to be November 10, 1971. However, having regard to the date of the order of assessment wherein the correct date has been stated, we have, with the consent of the parties, taken this date of filing the return as November 10, 1970. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanbhai K. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Gujarat-iv
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: [1985]156ITR373(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The assessment years with which we are concerned in this reference are 1970-71 and 1972-73. The assessee, an individual, initially filed the return of his net wealth for the respective years showing the status as resident but not ordinarily resident. He also disclosed in his return that he was not a citizen of India. The WTO, however in advertently, adopted the status of the assessee as non-resident/not a citizen of India. As a consequence, he granted a rebate of wealth-tax at 50% of the total wealth-tax payable by the assessee in accordance with the provision contained in rule 3 of Part II of the Schedule appended to the W.T. Act. On realising his mistake, the WTO proceeded to rectify his orders by adopting the status of the assessee as a resident but not ordinarily resident. Before making the rectification orders for the respective years, the WTO issued a show-cause notice to the assessee who in his reply accepted the fact pertaining to his status that he was a resid...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-ii Vs. Chunilal M. Pandya
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR505(Guj)
B.K. Mehta J.1. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year involved is 1971-72. The assessee was a partner in the firm of M/s. Shiv Rolling Mills (Old), Udhna. According to the Income-tax Officer, the assessee retired from the firm on June 30, 1970. At that point of time, in his personal account in the books of the firm, there was a debit balance of Rs. 62,520 which was built up on account of earlier years' losses and cash withdrawals by the assessee. BY a writing which is described as 'retirement and dissolution deed' executed on June 25, 1970, the firm had forgone its right to recover the amount from the assessee with the result that the assessee had not to pay any amount to the firm on account of the amount standing to his debit in the books of the firm. 2. According to the Income-tax Officer, this was a case of retirement of the assessee from the firm and the decision of the firm not to enforce recovery from the assessee brought the case of the assessee within the purvie...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Guj)52; [1986]158ITR486(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of commission of Rs. 36,215 paid to Dena Bank, Bombay ?' 2. A few facts need be set out in order to appreciate the contentions urged in support of this reference and those which were urged for repelling the said contentions on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The assessment year under reference is 1966-67, the corresponding previous year being S.Y. 2021, which ended on October 24, 1965. The assessee, which is a registered partnership firm, carried on business in tobacco and bidi leaves and also of manufacturing bidis. The firm had its Held office at Nadiad with branches at various places in India, namely, Calcutta, Gondia, Tirora, Sihora, Saugar, etc. The assessee-firm had on March 31, 1965, made a voluntary disclosure of income to the tune of Rs. 41.50 lakhs on which i...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Major Virendrarai J. Kharod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)2GLR963
G.T. Nananavati, J.1. The petitioner, a Civil Engineer, joined the Military Service as a IInd Lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers on December 11, 1962. He was promoted to the post of Captain and later on became a Major. At his request he was transferred to the office of the Commander Works Engineers (CWE), Gujarat Area at Baroda on 20-12-1971. It is the petitioner's case that while he was serving as a Garrison Engineer at Baroda, he came in conflict with his superior officer Lt. Col. Sundaram, who was the Commander Works, as the petitioner had declined to comply with his requests which were contrary to the rules. At the instance of Lt. Col. Sundaram, a vigilance check of the work done by the petitioner was carried out; but nothing adverse was found. Even then Sundaram appointed a Board of Officers on August 29, 1974 to investigate the circumstances under which excess-provisioning in the divisional stock was ordered by the petitioner's office and also to verify whether purchases of sto...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›