Allahabad Court September 1966 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Shambhoo Dayal Om Prakash and Co., Ferozabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All203
Manchanda, J. 1. This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of Brijlal Gupta J. dated the 3rd November 1961 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was partly allowed and a writ of Certiorari was issued quashing the orders imposing penalty under Section 46 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the sums of Rupees 533/- and Rupees 450/- and a writ of Mandamus restraining the Income-tax Officer from realising the said amounts.2. The sole ground on which the orders levying penalties in the sum of Rs. 533 and Rs. 450/- were quashed was because of an admission said to have been made by the Income-tax Officer in his counter affidavit, 'that the contents of paragraph 14 of the said affidavit are admitted'. Paragraph 14 of the affidavit was as follows;'That on the 28th November 1957 the Income-tax Officer Firozabad imposed a further penalty of Rs. 533/- on petitioner no. 1 under Section 46 (1) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhan Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All442
ORDER1. This writ petition filed byJodhan, which has been referred to us fordecision at the instance of S.N. Singh J., challenges a decision given by the Board ofRevenue on 30-5-1961 in a second appealarising out of a suit under Section 176 of theZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,confirming the appellate decision of the Additional Commissioner. Gorakhpur, dated2-12-1960.2. The plots in suit were originally held by one Ghulaman, who left two sons, Salik (father of the petitioner Jodhan and O. P. 6 Natha) and Lochan (father of O. P. 4 Ramdhari). On Ghulaman's death the property was recorded in the name of Lochan alone; and when Lochan and Salik died a dispute arose between their sons, Ramdhari (son of Lochan) claiming to be the sole tenant, while Jodhan and Natha (sons of Salik) claimed that they were entitled to half share in the plots in question. On 20-3-1957 Jodhan and Natha filed this suit for partition under, Section 17ft of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Onkar Dutt Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR359(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment under section 34 was validly made ?'The material facts are these : The relevant year of assessment is 1955-56. No return was filed in response to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Act, nor was any notice issued under section 22(2) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer for the relevant assessment year. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59, the Income-tax Officer considered that some income had escaped assessment. He, therefore, as required by law, applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax for approved to take action under section 34(1)(a) of the Act. The approval having been obtained, the notice under section 34 of the Act was served upon the assessee on the 12th September, 1959. More than two months before the notice und...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR344(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether the authorities below acted legally in treating the sum of Rs. 18,005 as the income of the assessee, liable to be taxed in the year 1947-48 ?'The material facts are these : The assessment is in the status of an individual. The assessee was a partner holding a share of Rs. 0-5-4 in a rupee in the firm, Ganesh Prasad Tribeni Prasad. The previous year of the said firm relevant to the assessment year 1947-48 was the one which commenced on the 14th of April, 1946. On the first day of the accounting year of the firm, i.e., on the 14th April, 1946, the capital account of the assessee in the books of the firm was credited with the sum of Rs. 18,005. The assessee was called upon to explain the source, nature and the character of the cash credit. The assessees explanation was that this was out of the money and ornaments brought from Rangoo...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv NaraIn Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur, and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR233(All)
In proceedings for recovery of income-tax due from Messrs. Mohanlal & Company, the Tax Recovery Officer, Kanpur, attached house No. 1/196, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Thereafter, a proclamation for sale of the property was issued. The auction was held on October 16, 1963, and was knocked down to the petitioner at Rs. 6,000. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500 on the spot in accordance with rule 57(1) of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961. On October 28, 1963, the petitioner received a notice from Shri H. P. Mudgal, acting on behalf of Rup Narain Dikshit and Baikunth Vaishni Dikshit, informing him that the property which had been purchased by him was subject to a mortgage on the foot of which a suit had been instituted, and the suit had been decreed for Rs. 10,434,79. On October 30, 1963, the petitioner field an application under rule 61 of Schedule II pointing out that the fact that property was subject to an encumbrance had not been disclosed in the sale proclamation and that, if...
Tag this Judgment!Tarzan Hosiery Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, District, I(B) War ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR842(All)
BROOME J. - This writ petition filed by Messrs. Tarzan Hosiery Private Limited of Kanpur against the Income-tax Officer of district I(B) Ward of Kanpur, has been referred to us for decision at the instance of Pathak J. on the ground that it raises questions of great importance. The facts of the case are as follows : On June 22, 1964, the petitioner received a notice dated April 8, 1964, from the respondent under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring a return of total income for the assessment year 1964-65, to be filed by July 25, 1964. On July 24, 1964, the petitioner applied for extension of time up to August 30, 1964, but this was refused by the respondent, with the result that the petitioner was unable to file the return within the time allowed and became liable for the payment of interest and to the imposition of penalty.The petitioners contention is that, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Plastic Products Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All3; [1967]19STC480(All)
Manchanda, J. 1. These are cases stated under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) The question referred is.'Whether safety razor as manufactured by the applicant dealer can be classified as cosmetic and toilet within the purview of Notification No 905/X referred to above?'2. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The assessee is a manufacturer of safety razors made out of plastic material. The rele-vani year of assessment is 1957-58. The Assessing Officer claimed that such a safety razor fell within the mischief of item No. 6 cosmetics and toilet requisites and was, therefore, assessable at a higher rate under the said notification issued under Section 3A of the Act The asscssee's contention on the other hand was that a safety razor was not a 'cosmetic' nor was it a 'toilet requisite' and therefore, it fell to be assessed at the lower rate, under the general charging Section 3 of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer, however, held safety razors to fall wi...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1968All82; [1967]66ITR175(All)
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J. 1. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1963-64. A notice of demand was served upon him requiring him to pay income-tax in the sum of Rs. 6,858.88. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order. During the pendency of the appeal, as the petitioner had not paid the tax assessed against him, a notice was issued by the Income-Tax Officer on November 18, 1965 calling upon him to show cause why a penalty should not be levied under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice required the petitioner to appear personally or through an authorised representative on November 24, 1965 or to send a written communication so as to reach the Income-tax Officer on or before that date. On November 23, 1965 the petitioner submitted an application to the Income-tax Officer. The subject of the application was stated as 'Request for stay of disputed tax till decision in appeal,' and it was mentioned that an appeal was pending before ...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All430; (1968)ILLJ420All
Sahai, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of B. N. Nigam, J. dated February 2, 1966, dismissing writ petition No. 502 of 1964 filed by the appellant, the Tulsipur Sugar Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company). The Central Government appointed a Central Wage Board for the Sugar Industry for working out a wage structure and for determining the categories of employees to be brought within the scope of the proposed wage fixation and also for working out the principles governing the grant of bonus. The Central Wage Board made its recommendations which were accepted by the Government. The U. P. Government published a notification in the State Gazette of April 27, 1961 reproducing the recommendations made bv the Central Wage Board. One of the recommendations that the Central Wage Board made was that 'the wages and dearness allowance specified' in Clause (6) of the recommendations were to 'take effect from November 1, 1960'. After the Central Wage Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Singh Vs. Baljit Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967All572
S.N. Katju, J.1. These are four Appeals arising out of a dispute between the parties with respect to five Parnalas. 2. Admittedly the water from the Parnalas flows from the house of Maharaj Singh and falls down on the land which now admittedly belongs to Baljit Singh, Maharaj Singh instituted Suit No. 669 of 1968 claiming an injunction restraining Baljit Singh from interfering with his right to flow water from the aforesaid Parnalas. 11 has given rise to Second Appeals Nos. 3786 and 8788 of 1960. Baljit Singh instituted Suit No. 744 of 1958. He asked for an injunction restraining Maharaj Singh from interfering with his right to obstruct the flow of water falling from the Parnalas in dispute. It has given rise to Second Appeals Nos. 3785 and 3787 of 1960. 3. The trial court held that Maharaj Singh was enlitled to flow water from two Parnalas and dismissed the rest of the claim of Maharaj Singh. It also dismissed Baljit Singh's claim with regard to the Parnalas for which Maharaj. Singh's...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »