Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-25-1991
Reported in : [1991]192ITR633(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai entered into an agreement dated December 28, 1961, with Messrs. Machinefabriek Reineveld, a company incorporated in Holland with limited liability ('foreign company' for short), under which the foreign company agreed to place at the disposal of the limited liability company, which Messrs. Chinubhai Manibhai and Shrenik Kasturbhai intended to incorporate in India all the present and future know-how, the use of patents and all technical details with complete workshop drawings for manufacture of their engineering products, on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Such technical collaboration was for a period of ten years from the date of incorporation of the said limited liability company or from the date effective steps were taken in execution of the agreement, whichever was later. It was provided in the agreement that, notwithstanding the expiry of the agreement, after the stipulated period of ten years, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-05-1991
Reported in : (1991)2GLR1035
C.K. Thakker, J.1. A substantial question of general public importance having far-reaching effect has been raised in the present group of petitions. In view of the challenge to the constitutional validity of certain statutory rules, some petitions were placed for admission as well as for final hearing before the Division Bench. In view of the fact that a similar question was pending before the Division Bench, the learned single Judge has also referred some petitions to the Division Bench and that is how all these matters are before us for final hearing.Facts:2. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy in question, it may be necessary to state facts in the first petition briefly. In Special Civil Application No. 1816 of 1989, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Range Forest Officer Class III on November 2, 1974 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservation of Forests, Class II which is a gazetted post. A charge-sheet dated August 21, 1984 was served...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-28-1991
Reported in : [1992]85STC258(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of petitions, a common question of vires of section 15B of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, as amended by section 2 of the Gujarat Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1990, arises for consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said provision is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. In order to appreciate this common grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to not a few introductory facts : 3. I. Introductory facts : The petitioners are dealers registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). They carry on the activity of manufacturing and selling various goods in this State. For the purpose, they require raw materials which are to be used in manufacturing the end-products. The raw materials purchased by them in the State and used in the manufacturing process have been subjected to purchase tax by the impugned provisions. The petitioners contend that the State Legislature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-04-1991
Reported in : (1991)99CTR(Guj)10
R.K. Abichandani, J. 1. The assessee-registered firm had originally filed a return of income for the assessment year 1971-72 in October 15 1971, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,01,917. Therefore, on March 11, 1974, the assessee filed a revised return declaring a total income of Rs. 1,58,917, the difference being an identical item of Rs. 57,000 which was debited twice firstly by debiting the value of 14,250 tonnes of salt stated to have been washed away due to rain and again by showing less closing stock on account of reduction at 10% (14,250 tonnes) on account of rain wash. The assessee was doing the activity of collecting, lifting and transporting of salt from Charkala Salt Works on behalf of Tata Chemicals, Mithapur. In its books of account, the assessee had, while determining the gross profit, debited the sum of Rs. 57,000 as value of 14,250 tonnes of salt at rate of Rs. 4 per tonne. During the said year, the opening stock of salt was 57,646 tonnes and the assessee has produced 91...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-10-1991
Reported in : (1991)98CTR(Guj)96; [1991]192ITR261(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) has referred to us for our opinion the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the deed of assignment dated December 6, 1951, executed by the assessee did not suffer from any infirmity (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only half of the income from the residuary property of the late Shri Pestanji Contractor could be taxed in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years. (a) 1970-71 and (b) 1971-72 ?' The facts leading to this reference, briefly stated, are as follows : The assessment years under reference are 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee. Pirojshah P. Contractor, since deceased was the son of one Pestanji Contractor. Pestanji Contractor died on August 16, 1941...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-17-1991
Reported in : [1991]192ITR376(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, J.1. A Hindu undivided family of Ambalal Shivlal consisted of two coparceners one of whom was Kantilal Ambalal. There was a partial partition of the Hindu undivided family of Ambalal Shivlal on March 30, 1970. At this partition, lands bearing Survey Nos. 296 and 386/2 of Vadaj were allotted to Kantilal Ambalal. The Hindu undivided family of Kantilal Ambalal consisted of Kantilal Ambalal, the karta, his wife and his two minor sons, Kamalesh and Pradeep. On the partial partition of the properties of the Hindu undivided family of Ambalal Shivlal, as aforesaid, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 296 and 386/2 of Vadaj became the properties of the Hindu undivided family of Kantilal Ambalal. 2. A notification dated January 15, 1970, was issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the aforesaid lands bearing Survey Nos. 296 and 386/2 of Vadaj for the Gujarat Housing Board. After the partial partition as aforesaid, the Hindu undivid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-28-1991
Reported in : (1991)2GLR1225
S.D. Dave, J.1. A set of questions referred to us runs thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the chicory roots, purchased by the applicant, were not covered either under entry 8 or under entry 23 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the agreement between the applicant and the farmers was not a contract of work and labour of growing chicory roots but was an agreement of sale and purchase of chicory roots ?' 2. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred to this Court the abovesaid two questions at the instance of the assessee, acting under section 69(1) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. 3. The assessee, M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd., is a public limited company having its registered office situated at Calcutta and the main office in Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessee-company has got a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jun-28-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Guj79
Jani, J.1. Sixteen First Appeals Nos.994/82 to 1008/82 and No. 1015/82 under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the State of Gujarat arise from a common judgment and different awards delivered by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh, in 16 Land Reference Cases Nos. 18/80, 19/80, 13/81, 14/81, 15/81, 12/81, 2/81, 3/81, 4/81, 5/81, 6/81, 7/81, 8/81, 9/81, 10/81 and 11/81 respectively. in respect of acquisition of different parcels of agricultural lands of village Malenka, in Mendarda Taluka of Junagadh District, acquired for the purpose of construction of Madhuvanti Dam under the Irrigation Scheme. The remaining four appeals have been filed by the original claimants against the awards made in Land Reference Cases Nos. 5181, 19/ 80, 12/ 81 and 4/ 8 1. The claimants have also filed cross-objections in the First Appeals No.994/82, 998/82, 1007/82, 1003/82 and 10017/82 filed by the State against those awards made in Land Reference Cases in which the claimants hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-06-1991
Reported in : (1993)2GLR1062
B.S. Kapadia, J. 1. The accused were charged for the Offences under Section 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) read with Section 9 as well as for the offence under Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 on the allegation that on 4th July, 1986 at about 5-00 p.m., one blue print map dated 11th June, 1967, prepared for the supply-line by the Garrison Engineer was obtained by the accused No. 1 with intention for being used for the purpose prejudicial to the external and internal safety and security of India, inasmuch as it was for the object of supplying the same to the institution like Intelligence of Pakistan through the accused No. 2.2. The said charge was framed on 3rd April, 1989. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and thereafter the trial proceeded.3. The facts of the case as revealed from the evidence of the witnesses can be briefly stated as under:One Ghenukhan Jafrukhan, a Constable in B.S.F., was discharging his duty at Khavda in Kachchh District and his duty was to stop the persons cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-21-1991
Reported in : (1992)105CTR(Guj)322; [1992]197ITR538(Guj)
R.C. Mankad, Actg.C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' in short), has referred to us for our opinion the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act' for short) : '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 sum of Rs. 40,651 was not liable to be disallowed under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 23,022 incurred as staff house expenses by the assessee was not liable to be disallowed ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company manufacturing different articles, namely, cotton textiles, carbide, calcium, caustic soda, P. V. C. articles, etc., and the assessment year under reference is 1973-74, the year of account being the financial year ending on March 31, 1973. The assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!