Allahabad Court January 1967 Judgments
U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. H.V. Bowen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All95
ORDERSatish Chandra, J.1. This group of petitions arise out of proceedings pending before the Labour Court Allahabad, in respect of a claim of retrenchment compensation and bonus between the U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company) and many of its workmen. They are directed against an order passed on 11th September, 1965, by the Labour Court deciding some preliminary legal objections raised by the Company and the order dated 8-2-1966 whereby some other issues were decided.2. The petitioner company carried on at Allahabad the business of generation and distribution of electricity under a licence granted in 1914. In view of the provisions in the licence, the State Electricity Board, Uttar Pradesh took over the Company's undertaking and continued the work of generation and distribution of electricity with effect from 17th September, 1964. Since then the Company has ceased to have any business at Allahabad. Most of the petitioner company's officers ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Chand Kunj Beharilal Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All193
ORDERS.C. Manchanda, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the asses-see directed against the order of the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow dated the 6th February 1961 and the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated the 2nd of November 1957, directing that the sum of Rs. 1397 shall be kept in deposit and not refunded and that the petitioner should deposit a further sum of Rs. 57.11 P. under Section 8-A (4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The prayer is for the quashing of the aforesaid two orders and for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ requiring the respondent, to refund the amount of Rs. 1397 and the sum of Rs. 57.11 P. realised under Section 8-A(4) of the Act. 2. The material facts are these: The petitioner is a firm carrying on business, inter alia, in food-grains and oil seeds at Gola Gokarannath in the district of Lakhimpur Kheri. The sale of food-grains was not taxable in U. P. under the U.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR521(All)
JAGDISH SAHAI J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has, at the instance of the assessee, submitted a statement of the case and the following question of law under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the opinion of this court :'Whether the share income from a firm could be assessed in the partners hands prior to the completion of the firms assessment ?'The assessee, Viswanath, is an individual. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1956-57.The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on February 14, 1961, including therein the assessees share in the profits of the firm Moti Lal and Sons with the following observation :'Share from Moti Lal and Sons taken provisionally to be rectified under section 35 after the share is finally determined.'He overruled the assessees plea that the assessment with regard to the income from the assessees share from the firm Moti Lal a...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Prasad Bagla Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All88; [1967]65ITR482(All)
Manchanda, J.1. This is a case stated under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 21,600 received by Sri Rameshwar Prasad Bagla as Managing Director's remuneration from the Indian Textile Syndicate Ltd., was rightly included as income of the H. U. F. of which Sri Rameshwar Prasad Bagla was the Karta?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1953-54, the previous year being Sambat year ending Asauj Sudi 9, 2009, corresponding to September-October 1952 of the English calendar. The assessment for the relevant assessment year was made on Sri Rameshwar Prasad Bagla in the status of a Hindu Undivided family including the share of profit from the firm of Gajadhar Prasad Barjnath. The latter firm was a firm of the three Bagla brothers. Each of the three Bagla brothers was representing his smaller Hindu undivided family, th...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Dass Vishwanath Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC60(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. This reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been made by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., who has submitted a statement of the case and invited our opinion on the following questions of law :(1) Whether under the circumstances and facts as stated above, the sales effected to Nepal buyers can be considered to be sales in the series of integrated activities, occasioning export of goods out of territory of India, and whether they are covered by Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution ?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances as stated above the delivery of goods taken by the Nepal buyer on the last railway terminus in the State of U.P. (India) which was the only way of taking delivery amounts to actual delivery within the State and the resultant sale subject to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act?2. The dealer in the present case is M/s. Damodar Dass Vishwanath of Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajodhya Prasad Tara Chand Khekra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR576(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :'Whether the assessee is entitled to development rebate on the 50 new Kolhus added during the relevant previous year ?'The material facts are these : The assessee in a firm which, inter alia, carries on business of letting out Kolhus on hire. The relevant assessment year is 1960-61, the accounting year whereof the year ending 30th of October, 1959.During the said previous year, the assessee let out 829 kolhus, out of which 779 kolhus were old ones and 50 were new additions manufactured during the previous year. The original cost of the said additions of kolhus amounted to Rs. 15,032. New kharad machines were also added during the previous year whose original cost was Rs. 4,000.The assessee claimed development rebate in respect of the 50 new kolhus and kharad machines added during the previous year, but the claim was ignored by the I...
Tag this Judgment!B. Malick Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Uttar Pradesh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR616(All)
MANCHANDA J. - This is a case stated under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question referred is :'Whether on a true interpretation of section 4 of the Income-tax Act, the sum of Rs. 20,000 received by the assessee as remuneration was revenue income liable to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The material facts lie within a narrow compass. There was a dispute, between Messrs. United Timber Trading Co., Calcutta, and the Union of India, which was referred to the arbitration of two persons. The nominee of the Government was Sri. Charan Singh, Special Solicitor to the Government Department of Industries and Supply, while the arbitrator nominated by Messrs. United Timber Trading Co. Ltd. was the late Sri Sarat Chandra Bose, a leading advocate and at that time a member of the Executive Council Government of India. The aforesaid arbitrators, at a meeting held on the 1st April, 1947, decided to request the assessee to act as an ump...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal Vs. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968All164
S.N. Singh, J.1. The short point for decision in this appeal is as to whether the document in suit is a promissory note or acknowledgement of liability with an agreement to pay.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that firm Chunni Lal Tukki Mal who are the appellants in the present appeal filed the suit against another firm Mukat Lal Ram Chandra on the allegation that the plaintiff's firm was a ioint Hindu family firm carrying on business in grain in Eazar Puranagani at Sikandarabad and the defendants' firm also carried on business in grain, Gur etc. at Sikandarabad district Bulandshahr It was alleged that the defendant No. 2 a branch firm of defendant No. 1 carried on business at Ghaziabad, Meerut. It was alleged that the defendant Ram Chandra and one deceased Mukat Lal were the partners of the above mentioned firms and the defendants Ratan Lal and Rameshwar Dayal carried on the business of the firm Ratan Lal Rameshwar Daval at Ghaziabad. Meerut, for and on behalf of d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Vijay Kumar Krishna Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC37(All)
S.C. Manchanda, J. 1. This is a further and better statement of the case under Section 11(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question referred is :-Whether any transactions between the cultivators and the purchasers in the presence of the assessee, the acts done by the assessee considered along with the acts done by the cultivators and the purchasers amount to passing of the property in the goods to the purchasers by the assessee ?2. The material facts are these: The assessees are dealers in foodgrains, oil-seeds and cotton as commission agents. In the assessment proceedings the claim put forward was that in respect of certain transactions the assessee was not a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act inasmuch as they had no authority to sell the goods and had acted as mere brokers bringing together the buyers and sellers and as such they were not liable to be assessed to sales tax. According to the assessees their modus operandi was t...
Tag this Judgment!Badrinath Agarwal. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR242(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 two questions referred are :'1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the application of the flat rate of 5 per cent. was justified when in the case of another dealer of the same place, namely, M/s. Abid Hussain Sajjad Hussain of Mubarakpur, who is also an assessee, a rate of 2% disclosed was accepte ?2. Whether, in any case, the income-tax authorities were not liable to split up the total estimated turnover of Rs. 1,50,000 into turnover of business on commission and turnover of business on own account and applied a lower rate on turnover from business on commissio ?The material facts are these. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the assessment is for the year 1950-51. The assessee was dealing in Banarsi goods and the sales were both on commission basis as well as on his own account. An income of only Rs. 1,443 from business was returned. In respon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »