Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-05-1974
Reported in : [1974]96ITR672(Guj)
P.D. Desai, J.1. This reference illustrates once again what a bewildering variety of questions arise for consideration under the income-tax law. The question which falls for determination in this reference is rather unusual, namely, whether drawings and patterns received by an assessee from a foreign company under a collaboration agreement can be said to be 'plant' on which depreciation is allowable under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is a very debatable question which is not easy of answer and though we have taken one view which appears to us more plausible, the other view is not altogether impossible. 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of elevators. The controversy in the present reference arises out of two agreement entered into by the assessee with foreign collaborators. The first is an agreement dated October 5, 1960, entered into by the assessee with Alfred Wiseman & Co. Ltd., Birmingham, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-02-1974
Reported in : [1977]106ITR512(Guj)
P.D. Desai J.1. This reference, made at the instance of the assessee under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relates to the assessment to wealth-tax made on the assessee for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, in respect of certain properties which devolved upon him under a will and the principal considerations is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said properties could be said to be assets belonging to the assessee on the relevant valuation dates, namely, December 31, 1962, and December 31, 1963, and therefore, liable to be taken into account in determining the net wealth of the assessee ?' 2. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the points raised for our determination and they may be first set out. 3. One Balabhai Damodardas was the grand-father of the assessee. He was possessed of considerable movable properties acquired by his personal skill and labour and held in his indivi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-16-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Guj182; (1975)0GLR806
P.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of final plot No. 51 of Town Planning Scheme No. IV (Varied) of Maninagar (Manipur) at Ahmedabad. The said plot admeasures about 2662 sq, yds. In the year 1924 the Notified Area Committee of Kankaria was the local authority for the Maninagar area within the meaning of Section 9 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act). The Notified Area Committee declared its intention to frame a Town Planning Scheme in the year 1924 and a draft planning scheme was accordingly Prepared in due course in the said draft scheme the land of the petitioner was reserved for Post Office and it was directed that the land shall remain vacant in Possession of the owner for fifteen years and that no super structure shall be erected thereon during the said period. The Final Town Planning Scheme No. IV (Manipur) was thereafter duly prepared and by a notification dated April 27, 1931 sanction was accorded to the same with effect from J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-03-1974
Reported in : (1975)16GLR749
J.B. Mehta, J.1. This petition has been filed by the original claimants in M.A.C.T. Application before respondent No. 1 Claims Tribunal. The claimant's son had been knocked down by respondent No. 3, A.M.T.S. driver. The compensation which was claimed in the petition was of a sum of Rs. 9999/-. The judgment of the Tribunal resulted in the following order, dated January 11, 1974:The opponent shall pay to the applicants a sum of Rs. 7500/- with interest from the date of application till payment at 6% per annum and costs of the application. The opponents shall bear own costs.An award shall be drawn upon the deficit Court-fees being paid.' After this judgment, the claimants moved the Tribunal by an application, dated April 18, 1974, requesting the Tribunal to perform its duty to draw up the award and to pass suitable directions so that the amount of the award can be recovered from respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the driver and the Corporation. It was also pointed out by the claimants that as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-01-1974
Reported in : (1975)16GLR916
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners herein have by this petition challenged the vires of the Rules 48 and 54 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') framed by the State Government under Section 59 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners are dealing in agricultural produce at Dohad, district Panchmahals, and are holding 'A' class licence granted by the respondent No. 1, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee at Dohad established under Section 9 of the Act and which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'.3. The case of the petitioners is that they are interested in the business of buying and selling of agricultural produce on a large scale and hence they have to purchase goods from the places situated either outside the market area established for the purpose of the Act or from outside the State of Gujarat. After purchasing goods in this manner they sell ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-19-1974
Reported in : (1976)17GLR18
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner company challenges in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the order of the central Government, dated April 15, 1974, under Section 19A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, denying infancy benefits to the petitioners new.2. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under:The Baroda Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Limited which was running a cotton textile unit at the present site was closed down in October 1966 and winding up petition was presented before this Court on March 8, 1967. On April 17, 1968, this Court ordered the said company, hereinafter referred to as the old company, to be wound up and the official liquidator was by the order dated August 25, 1969, authorised to sell the moveable and immoveable properties of the company by public auction. Those assets of the company included extensive open land with this textile unit. Meanwhile the Gujarat State Textile Corporation, hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-09-1974
Reported in : (1975)0GLR371
Divan, C.J.1. In this application in the form of a judge's summons it is prayed that the applicant may be permitted to proceed with Long Cause Suit No. 254 of 1972 filed by the applicant against the company in liquidation in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay or in the alternative that the suit may be ordered to be transferred to this court and the applicant may be permitted to proceed with the same. The applicant has further prayed that the respondents be ordered to give an inspection of the properties of the said company in their custody to the applicant. This judge's summons came up for hearing before our learned brother, J. B. Mehta, J., and by order dated April 15, 1974, our learned brother referred it to a Division Bench because he felt that the point involved was an important point and of wide public importance and required full consideration of the various decision hereinafter referred to. 2. The applicant is a limited company and carries on business, inter alia, of manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-04-1974
Reported in : [1975]100ITR97(Guj)
B.K. Mehta, J.1. The petitioners herein by these two petitions challenge the constitutional validity of sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the legality of the notices dated 29th March, 1972, issued by respondent No. 1 herein under section 148 of the said Act for reopening the assessments for assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, as he had reason to believe that income of the petitioners chargeable to tax for the said years had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the said Act. In order to appreciate the rival contentions in proper perspective, a few facts need be stated. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the son and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are grandsons of one Balabhai Damodar who died on 31st December, 1957, in jointness with his son, petitioner No. 1, and two grandsons - petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 - and other great-grandsons. The deceased Balabhai had separate properties as well as joint family properties. The deceased had executed a will dated 6th October, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Apr-26-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Guj120; (1975)1GLR509
1. Even though an illiterate sitting tenant, who does a good turn to his landlord by advancing a loan on mortgage, expressly does nothing, the law should attribute and ascribe to him a suicidal intention to surrender his tenancy by virtue of the fictional doctrine of merger (about which the poor tenant obviously knows nothing) say, the respondent. And it is this proposition which inter alia calls for scrutiny in this appeal.2. On March 14, 1947, the owners of the Suit fields, which according to the appellant were in his possession as a sitting tenant since more than 6 years before the date of transaction, transferred the same to one Vadilal under a registered document EX. 54.whether the document is one of an outright sale or one creating a mortgage by conditional sale is one of the questions which confronts the Court in the present matter. 21/2 months there after the transferee, Vadilal, executed document, Ex. 25, transferring such rights as he had acquired from the original owners to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-27-1974
Reported in : AIR1976Guj146; (1975)GLR904
T.U. Mehta, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in revision application No. TEN 746/69 holding that the petitioners. herein are not the tenants of the disputed fields which are situated in Dehen village of Olpad taluka in Surat district. The proceedings before the Tribunal arose out of the application filed by deceased Keshavlal Pragji, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 under See. 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to obtain a decision that he is the tenant of the disputed lands, The MaMl2tdar, Olpad, held that the petitioners are, the tenants and this decision of the Mamlatdar was confirmed by the Prant Officer, Olpad in appeal preferred before him by the respondent herein. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Prant Officer while acting under its revisional jurisdiction under 76 of the Act.2. This matter initially came up for h...
Tag this Judgment!