Allahabad Court August 1965 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.
Udhamal Vs. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC633(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The same question of law and fact is involved in all these three cases. We arc, therefore, disposing of them by means of a common judgment.2. The appellants in all the three cases are assessees from whom arrears of sales tax were due. The Sales Tax Officer made a request to the revenue authorities for the recovery of those arrears of sales tax as arrears of land revenue. The Tahsildar concerned took steps under Section 279 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A. Act) to make the recoveries.3. By means of the writ petitions giving rise to these special appeals, the proceedings taken by the Tahsildar were challenged on the following two grounds : -1. That the recovery of arrears of sales tax could not be made under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. Act.2. That the Collector alone could take steps for the recovery of the arrears as land revenue and inasmuch as the Tahsildar and not the Collector had started proceeding...
Mansa Ram and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR220(All)
M.C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) has, at the assessees instance, submitted this statement of the case inviting this court to answer the following question.'Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Commissioner of the Income-tax could lawfully revise the order of the Income-tax Officer with respect to the assessment year 1946-47, that is to say, for a period prior too the coming into force of section 33B of the Income-tax Act, by virtue of his powers under sub-section (1) of that section ?'The brief facts are that for the assessment year 1946-47, the Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order on March 29, 1951. On March 27, 1953, the Commissioner of Income-tax revised it in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by section 33B of the Income-tax Act. Section 33B was added with effect from March 30, 1948, by section 7 of the Income-tax and Businesses Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, No. 48 of 1948. Section 1(2) of the Amending Act laid down ...
Sri Jagannath Bhatla Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC540(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The assessment order was passed against the appellant under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. A notice of the assessment was served upon him on 20th August, 1961. Under Section 9 of the Act, an appeal from an assessment made under Section 21 lies within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of assessment. Section 9 allows appeals from certain orders and from assessments under certain sections. The period for an appeal is 30 days in all cases, but it is to be computed either 'from the date of service of the copy of the order or notice of assessment as the case may be'. This means that when an appeal is preferred from any of the orders mentioned in Section 9 the period is to be computed from the date of service of a copy of the order, and when it is from an assessment, it is to be computed from the date of service of a notice of assessment. So, in the instant case the period of limitation was to be computed from the date of service of a notice of assessment....
Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. Vs. RoopnaraIn Ramchandra (a Firm).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR314(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., submitted this statement of a case inviting this courts answers to the following questions :'1. Whether, on proper interpretation of the agreements and documents constituting the firm of Musaddilal & Sons, Sri Kishan & Sons, Ramanand Ram Kishan, Radheylal & Sons, Kailash Brothers and Motilal & Sons and also the deed dated November 17, 1952, governing the assessee firm, Musaddilal, Sri Kishan, Ajodhia Prasad, Radhey Lal, Kailash Nath and Amar Nath, Motilal were partners in the assessee-firm in their individual capacities or in their representative capacities of those firms ?2. Whether, in law, there was a sub-partnership between the partners of the assessee-firm and the partners of the firms mentioned above 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the application signed by the individual partners for renewal of registration of the asses...
Brij Behari Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR262(All)
MANCHANDA, J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The two questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on a true interpretation of the provisions of section 3(2) of the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949, and para. 5 of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949, the income, profits and gains arising in the State of Rampur during the accounting year ending on 30th April, 1948, could be assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1948-4 (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the accounting year ending 30th April, 1948, could be treated as the previous year for the assessment year 1948-49 within the meaning of section 2(11)(i)(b) ?'The material facts as culled from the statement of the case are these : The relevant assessment year is 1948-49. The previous year of the assessee was the financial year under the Ram...
Girwar Lal Shri Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: [1967]63ITR248(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Act. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 10,692 is an admissible deduction ?'The material facts are these. The assessee is a dealer in cloth. The assessment year is 1958-59, the previous year being the year ending 21st August 1957. On that date, which was the last day of the year of account, the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 29,482 in its accounts as additional sales tax payable under the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, which replaced the Ordinance No. XI of 1956 dated the 31st March, 1956, whereby the sales tax was raise from 3 pies and 6 pies to one anna per rupee. The validity of the ordinance and Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956, was challenged and they were declared to be ultra vires by this court by its order dated the 5th May, 1957. Subsequent thereto, the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957, was enacted on the 30th September, 1957. This also was decla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›