Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977]108ITR417(Guj)
C.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In this reference, at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the correct status of the assessee in respect of the properties inherited by him on the death of his father was as representing his Hindu undivided family or as an individual ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The assessment years under consideration are 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee who seems to have died during the pendency of the proceedings was one Dr. Bahubhai Mansukhbhai. The assessee's father, Mansukhbhai, died intestate on October 8, 1963, leaving certain self-acquired properties. On the death of Mansukhbhai these self-acquired properties devolved upon his widow and his son, that is, the assessee. The properties left by the deceased father of the assessee consisted of loans advanced by the deceased to certain parties and also bank deposits. The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1970]78ITR418(Guj)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J. 1. One Babarbhai Hirabhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as the deceased Babarbhai) was at all material times a permanent resident of Cambay which was a Native State prior to its merger with the then Province of Bombay. The deceased Babarbhai had deposited from time to time diverse sums of money with various firms which included Messrs. Das and Company of Bombay. Tax at the appropriate rate prevalent at the relevant time on the amount of interest on these deposits was deducted and paid by Messrs. Das and Company and other firms on behalf of the deceased under section 18(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Since the deceased has no other income in British India apart from the amount of interest on these deposits, he was not assessed to tax by the British Indian authorities until the merger of Cambay with then Province of Bombay. Subsequent to the merger, some inquiry was made by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Petlad Circle, Petlad, and pursuant to the inquiry, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1960)1GLR233
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This and the three other petitions raise an important question of construction of Section 15(2)(e) of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 All these petitions have identical facts and raise a common question of law. It would be therefore convenient to cite the facts in petition No. 803/60 as facts typical to all the three other petitions and dispose of all the four petitions by a common judgment.2. In Special Civil Application No. 803/60 the petitioner was a duly elected councillor of the Municipality of Mehmedabad. On July 18 1959 the second opponent also a councillor of the municipality made an application under Section 15(3) of the Act to the Collector of Kaira stating therein that the petitioner had absented herself from the meetings of the municipality during four successive months and had consequently incurred disqualification laid down in Section 15(2)(e) of the Act. By his order dated 29th January 1960 the Collector held that the petitioner was not disabled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2008]145CompCas217(Guj)
A.S. Dave, J.1. Shri Saurabh Amin, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Shri Mrugesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for the official liquidator and Shri Utkarsh Jani, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are served.2. By this application, the applicant-Commissioner of Customs, Import and General, New Delhi, has prayed for taking out judges' summons under Section 456 read with Section 457 of the Companies Act and Rule 6 read with Rules 9 and 11 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with a prayer clause that direction be issued to the official liquidator of GIL Hospitals Ltd. (in liquidation) to hand over the possession of 13 medical equipments as described at annexure 'A' to the affidavit filed in support of the judges' summons to the applicant since the property is vested in the Central Government with effect from October 30, 1999, by virtue of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. It is, inter alia, prayed that pending hearing and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Guj)54; [1987]168ITR472(Guj)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The assessee is a member of a Hindu undivided family. The said Hindu undivided family had received agricultural land on partial partition of the bigger-Hindu undivided family some time in October, 1955 (S. Y. 2011). Expect for carrying out certain agricultural operations, this land was not put to any other use. It is the case of the assessee that on February 8, 1975, this land was converted into stock-in-trade in the books of the assessee and the said stock-in-trade was transferred on the very same day as contribution of the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm of Messrs. H. J. Traders wherein the Hindu undivided family had 28 paise in a rupee as share in the profit and loss of the said partnership firm. The value of the transferred land was taken as Rs. 1,99,045 was against its original cost of Rs. 17,817. The sum of Rs. 1,99,045 was credited to the account of the Hindu undivided family in the partnership firm as contribution towards capital. 2. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)1GLR557
A.N. Divecha, J.The petitioners of these three petitions are brothers. The orders under challenge in these petitions are common for all three brothers. The properties involved in all these three petitions are also the same. Common questions of law and fact are found arising in all these petitions. I have therefore thought it fit to dispose of all these three petitions by this common judgment of mine.1. The order passed by the competent authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 in each petition) on 25th June, 1985 under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (the Ceiling Act (for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the common order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 in each petition) on 28th December, 1988 in Appeals Nos. Rajkot-87 of 1985, Rajkot-5 of 1986 and Rajkot-76 of 1985 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2001]250ITR565(Guj)
A.R. Dave, J.Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik for the respondents.1. The facts leading to the present petition, in a nutshell, are as under:2. Petitioner No. 1 is an H.U.F., of which petitioner No. 2 is a Karta. Petitioner No. 3 is a proprietor of M/s. Menka Soap Factory and petitioner No. 4 is a manager of M/s. Menka Soap Factory. A search was carried out at the residential/business premises of the petitioners under the provisions of sec. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the said search was concluded on 8th December 1999. During the course of the search, certain documents and computer floppies etc. were seized by the respondents and the said material is still in possession of the respondent authorities.3. According to the provisions of sec. 132(8) of the Act, the books of account and other documents seized under the provisions of sec. 132(1) or sec. 132(1A) of the Act cannot be retained by the authorised offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2002]254ITR235(Guj)
D.A. Mehta, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether in law and on facts the gift of Rs. 1 lakh was not taxable under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The assessment year is 1982-83 and the relevant accounting period is year ended on March 31, 1982. On December 28, 1982, the assessee filed a return ofgift showing the value of taxable gift at Rs. 29,180. In the said return of income, the assessee also claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in relation to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh gifted by him at Srinagar. The say of the assessee was that as the gift had taken place in the State of Jammu and Kashmir it fell outside the scope of the Gift-tax Act by virtue of the provisions of Section 5(1)(ii) of the Act. Some undisputed facts are : that the assessee had transferred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : LC2010(1)217
K.A. Puj, J.1. The appellant - original defendant I.e. ACME Pharmaceuticals, Ahmedabad has filed this Appeal From Order challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad below an application Exh.6 in Regular Civil Suit No. 4703 of 2000 whereby the notice of motion application taken out by the original plaintiff - present respondent was allowed and the appellant was restrained from using his trademark 'AROXIL' in respect of the drug 'CEFADROXIL'. The trademark of the respondent - plaintiff is 'DROXYL' in respect of the same drug and obtained from drug 'CEFADROXIL'.2. Initially, Appeal From Order came to be heard on 21.12.2006. It was agreed between the parties that they would supply necessary documents and matter would be heard finally. Mr. Y.J. Trivedi, learned advocate appeared for the appellant and Mr. R.R. Shah, learned advocate appeared on Caveat for the respondent. The order passed by the learned City Civil Judge was stayed. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1977]108ITR674(Guj)
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion by Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessments made by recourse to provisions of section 147(a) in this case were valid and justified in law ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessment years under reference are 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee is a private limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The previous years of account relevant to the assessment years under reference are calendar years 1957 and 1958, respectively. The original assessment was made for the two years by the Income-tax Officer under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 on total income of Rs. 90,589 for assessment year 1958-59 and Rs. 97,069 for assessment year 1959-60. Subsequently it was found by Income-tax Officer that in the statement of computation of property income ...
Tag this Judgment!