Gujarat Court March 1986 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.
Fatesang Gimba Vasava and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj9; (1987)1GLR219
Ahmadi, J.1. Poor Adivasis known as Kotwalias and Vansfodias have preferred these writ petitions making a grievance that they are being harassed by the officers of the Forest Department with a view to depriving them of the privileges conferred upon them by the State Government. These petitioners have their residence in reserved forests and they claim certain privileges in regard to the collection of forest produce, including bamboos. According to them, they are privileged to collect a certain quantity of bamboos per family from the reserved forests for the purpose of making toplas, supdas, palas, etc., for their hutments and livelihood. The petitioners of writ petition No. 1932 of 1982 are residing in the forests of Umarpada and Vankal in Mangrol taluka and Mangrol, Songadh and Vyara talukas of the erstwhile State of Baroda. The petitioners of writ petition No. 6252 of 1983 are Kotwalias residing in the forests of Netrang and Jhagadia range in Mangrol and Jhagadia taluka of Broach Dist...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR761(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business at Ahmedabad and Bombay. The assessee is keeping accounts according to financial year ending on 31st March. The assessment years under consideration are assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71. The assessee-company has a unit at Ahmedabad in which textile goods are manufactured. It has another unit at Ahmedabad in which caustic soda is manufactured. This unit is engaged in the manufacture of calcium carbide, caustic soda and polyvinyl chloride articles. The assessee has plants or units for production of the following items : 1. Calcium carbide, 2. Polyvinyl chloride resin, 3. Polyvinyl chloride compound, 4. Polyvinyl acetate, and 5. Polyvinyl chloride. jCalcium carbide is not a petrochemical product. The plants or units at serial No. 2 and 4 produce PVC resin acetate and PV acetate. Plants or units at serial No. 3 produce PVC compound by mixing PVC resin with chalk powder. PVC resin used in plant at serial No. ...
Standard Radiators Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Guj)168; [1987]165ITR178(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred to us for our opinion the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mistake rectified by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could be said to be' a mistake apparent from the record' referred to in section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a registered partnership firm consisting of two partners and the assessment year under reference is assessment year 1966-67, the previous year being the period from November 5, 1964, to July 31, 1965. On July 31, 1965, that is, on the last day of the accounting period, the business of the assessee-firm was transferred to a private limited company called 'Standard Radiators (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The only shar...
Sharadchandra Chimanlal and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Guj55; (1986)2GLR1369
B.K. Mehta, J.1. A few facts need be noticed in order to appreciate the claim made in this appeal.2. By notification issued by the State Government in the Revenue Department dt. Jan. 10, 1974 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the intention to acquire the property bearing city survey No. 3/3222 comprising the land bearing S. No. 126 and the building standing thereon situate within the town limits of Khambhat was declared for public purpose of Vegetable Market Yard. It should be recalled that the land in question is of the ownership of one religious public trust, namely, Galivara Panch and Kalka Mataji Temple Trust, Khambhat and permanent lease hold rights were granted in respect thereof to one Kavidas Parshottaindas who died during the pendency of these proceedings by registered lease deed of Mar. 31, 1924.The building consists of a bungalow and 9 rooms attached thereto which were constructed by the lessee, The State Government published a notification under S. 6 acquiring the said...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.B. Kharwar and Sons
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Guj)9; [1987]163ITR394(Guj)
Mankad, J.1. In these two references, one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee, the main question which arises for our consideration is whether the process of dyeing and printing grey cloth would amount to manufacturing of goods which would entitle the assessee to claim relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. Its year of account is Samvat year and the assessment years under consideration are 1972-73 to 1975-76. The assessee's business in the years under consideration was to dye and print cloth. The assessee dyed and printed its own cloth and its customers' cloth in the assessment year 1973-74, 1974- 75 and 1975-76. In the year of account relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee had the business of dyeing and printing cloth of its customers. In other words, in this year it did notdye and print its own cloth. In the subsequent years, ...
Ranavajubha Gumansingh Vs. Rana Ketubhai Gumansingh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ686; (1986)2GLR1407
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioner is original complainant. He filed Criminal Case No. 542 of 1980 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Limbdi against opponents Nos. 1 to 3 who are original accused. It was alleged against the accused that they had produced false and fabricated document on 28-9-1978 in the proceedings under the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Debt Settlement Officer. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused on the basis of these allegations. Thereafter, the accused gave application Exh. 9 and contended that in view of Section 196(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code'), only the Court has power to file a complaint in such cases; and as the present complaint was filed by a private individual, it deserves to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate held that the Debt Settlement Officer is a Court within the meaning of that term as def...
Jabbar Suleman Dhoka Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ515; (1986)2GLR1246
J.P. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1985 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. The facts of this case as alleged by the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows:On 14-3-1985 at about 10-30 P.M. the accused went to the house of Bai Fatma speaking abuses to the husband of Fatma, Ibrahim Tajubhai. Fatma asked him as to why he was speaking abuses, whereupon the accused gave two slaps to the husband of Fatma. Fatma separated them and then the accused went to his house, came with a knife and gave a blow to the deceased causing injury on his thigh which ultimately proved fatal. Information was given to police and the police registered the offence and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted to the Court of the Magistrate who ...
Vijaykumar Muljibhai Jasani Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporati ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)1GLR139
R.A. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who is a workman of the respondent S.T. Corporation was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct of absenting from duty for two days and negligence. The Labour Court in reference (LCR) Application No. 382 of 1981 held that the punishment was unreasonable and excessive therefore required interference under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the workman should be reinstated in continuity of service with 50% back wages. The Labour Court also held that in view of the fact that he has been awarded 50% back wages is sufficient punishment looking to the circumstances of the case. It is against this order that the workman has preferred this petition, and submitted that the punishment of refusal of 50% back wages is excessive for the small misconduct alleged against him. On behalf of the respondent Corporation it has been submitted that the Labour Court has, in exercise of its discretion, refused to award full back wa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiv Constructions
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Guj)58; [1987]165ITR159(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of construction of roads and buildings. For the assessment year 1974-75, it claimed development rebate of Rs. 77,946 on the purchase of dumpers on the ground that the dumpers were part of machinery used for construction. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessee's claim holding that the dumpers were road transport vehicles. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner having confirmed the view taken by the Income-tax Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dumpers were part of the construction machinery and were used by the assessee as such, and in its view, dumpers which may be transport vehicles in the hands of one person, could be tools of business in the hands of others. Since the dumpers were used for the purpose of construction work by the assessee, the assessee could not be denied ...
Shiv Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Guj)37; [1987]165ITR160(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of construction of roads and buildings. In the course of assessment for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation at the rate of 30% on the dumpers used by the assessee for the purpose of its business. The depreciation was so allowed on the assumption that dumpers were motor lorries or other road transport vehicles entitled to such depreciation under Part III-D(9) of the depreciation schedule attached to the Income-tax Rules. However, the assessee's claim for development rebate on those dumpers was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) and claimed that dumpers were machinery and that the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the dumpers. The Tribunal accepte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »