Allahabad Court October 1968 Judgments
H.G. Misra and Co. Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All566; [1969]72ITR489(All)
Mukerjee, J. 1. This writ petition raises the question of vires of Section 298 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Removal of Difficulties Order No. 2 of 1963 issued by the Central Government thereunder by notification dated the 11th June, 1963. The material facts are as follows:2. The applicant, who is the assessee in this case, is a firm constituted with effect from the first day of October, 1963, to carry on the business of manufacture of hosiery and sale of cotton yarn at Kanpur. Its first accounting period commenced on the 1st of October, 1961 and ended on the 31st March, 1962. For this period, the applicant returned an Income of Rs. 74,129/- assessable for the assessment year 1962-63. The income was ultimately assessed at Rs. 86,302/-. The Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, hereafter referred to as the old Act, was in force throughout this account period. The applicant was a new assessee and, therefore, Section 18-A (3) of the Old Act was applicable to It. Section 18-A (3) ran as follow...
Tag this Judgment!Balbir Singh Vs. Smt. Sulochana Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All382
H.C.P. Tripathi, J. 1. Appellant Balbir Singh had filed a petition for probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act on 5-3-1963. On the basis of a will which was alleged to have been executed byone Gopal Narain Fadnis on 18th May 1961. Gopal Narain Fadnis died on 19-1-1963 leaving his only daughter Smt. Sulo-chana as his survivor. Smt. Sujochana filed a written statement in the case and inter alia pleaded that the application for probate was not maintainable. Issues were framed, parties led evidence and the case was argued on their behalf on several dates before the trial Judge. Before the conclusion of the arguments however an application for amendment was made by the appellant which was rejected by the Judge on 16-9-1966.2. On 19-9-1966 an application was filed by the appellant before the District Judge, Lucknow praying that he may be permitted to withdraw the above probate application with liberty to bring any other proceeding or suit as 'he may be advised' on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Khan Mehboob Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC20(All)
1. In this and the connected references the following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax.(1) Whether under the circumstances of the case the proof of payment of additional excise duty was incumbent without which the turnover of 14th December, 1957, onward, was not exempt ?(2) In any case whether the turnover was exempt or not, the relevant item of Notification No. ST-905/X issued under Section 3-A stands modified by Notification No. ST-4485 dated 14th December, 1957, as to make this turnover taxable under Section 3 of the Act ?2. The assessee manufactures and sells Jin's. It carries on business at branches situated at Faizabad, Lucknow, Agra and Bareilly. Sales Tax Reference No. 479 of 1965 arises out of assessment proceedings for the year 1957-58 in respect of the Bareilly branch, Sales Tax Reference No. 480 of 1965 relates to assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1957-58 in respect of the Faizabad branch, Sales T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: [1970]26STC65(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. It is a combined reference relating to two dealers, M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills and M/s. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills both of the district Bijnor, arising out of two separate revision petitions filed by the two dealers. The Commissioner of Sales Tax asked for a reference in both the cases and the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Meerut Range, has accordingly submitted this combined reference.2. At the outset, we must point out that the procedure adopted by the revising authority in making a combined reference in the case of two different dealers is highly irregular and is not permissible under the law. Section 11 contemplates a reference at the instance of the dealer or the Commissioner in respect of questions arising out of a particular order passed by the revising authority under Section 10 of the Act. When the...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Irfan Ali Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ603
ORDERGangeshwar Prasad, J.1. Irfan Ali, applicant in revision No. 1166 of 1964 and Smt. Lareti, applicant in revision No. 1181 of 1964 who were tried together by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bareilly, were convicted under Section 120B, I. P. C. read with Section 328, I. P. C. and Smt. Lareti was further convicted under Sec. 328, I. P. C. simpliciter. Irfan Ali was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment on the charge against him and Smt. Lareti was sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment on each of the two charges for which she was convicted. The sentences imposed upon Smt. Lareti were, however, directed to run concurrently. The applicants appealed against the convictions and sentences, but their appeals were dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge Bareilly-Bijnor. Thereupon they came up in revision to this Court.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was as follows:In 1959, when the offences were said to have been committed, both the applicants were in the employ of Sri As...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Hem Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All228
R.B. Misra, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Budaun, dated 7th December, 1961. The facts in this case are not in dispute and, succinctly put, are as follows.2. Smt. Umatul Khatun, wife of Moulvi Tawakkul Husain, was the owner in possession of house No. N-7/6, situate in Mohalla Sheikh Patti. She sold this house to Hem Chand respondent No. 1 (since dead and represented by his heirs) and Tribhuwan Nath respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1,500 under a registered gale deed dated 25th May, 1951. The two respondents paid the full price to the vendor. On llth August, 1951 the Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, Budaun declared the house as evacuee property. The respondents, as required by the statute, applied for confirmation of the sale under Section 40 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Their application was, however, dismissed on 19th October, 1951. The appeal and thereafter revision p...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR296(All)
Mukherjee, J. 1. This is a case stated under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Allahabad Bench of the Appellate Tribunal. The material facts are these:The Muir Mills Ltd. is a public limited company, having a share capital of Rs. 60,00,000 divided into 30,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each and 30,000 preference shares of Rs. 100 each. Previously, one Mr. K.J.D. Price and Mr. T. I. Smith were the managing directors of this company and they, along with the members of their family and friends, held the largest single block of shares in the company. Towards the end of the year 1945, they decided to leave India and sell away their shares. Their shares were purchased by Major General Mahabir Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana, Major General Madan Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana and Shri Hanuman Prasad Dhanuka. They also purchased some more shares in the open market and by May, 1947, they possessed 5,085 ordinary shares and 19,540 preference shares of the said company. Thereafter, they fl...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Kesh Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All51; 1970CriLJ132
Oak, C.J.1. The question before the Full Bench is :'Whether the dictum of this Court in the case of Parbhoo v. Emperor, 1941 All LJ 619 = (AIR 1941 All 402) (FB) to the effect that the accused who puts forwarda plea based on a general exception in the Indian Penal Code is entitled to be acquitted if upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole (including the evidence given in support of the plea based on such a general exception) a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court whether the accused person is entitled to the benefit of the said exception is still good law'.2. I have read the judgment prepared by my learned brother Mathur, J. In my opinion, the statement of law in Parbhoo's-case : AIR1941All402 is not accurate, and needs qualification.Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, states:'When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, or within any s...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn Shukla Vs. Superintendent Central Excise, Varanasi and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1969All524
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of oil. He owns an oil expeller and four kolhus. On June 29, 1961, the Superintendent Central Excise, Varanasi, made an order stating that on a surprise visit to the Mill premises, he found the seal fixed to one expeller broken and the ex-peller in use and because of the breach of Rule 96(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, thereby he imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 100/- under Rule 96(S) and also demanded compounded levy in respect of the expeller at the rate applicable to a mill working for more than 96 hours per week. He also mentioned that two kolhus on which the compounded levy had been originally paid at the monthly rate under table I would be liable to payment at the weekly rate under table II of the Government Notification. This order was followed by a notice of demand dated August 12, 1961 particularising the different amounts payable by the petitioner under the aforesaid compound levy, t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babu Ram Chandra Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR143(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. There existed a firm consisting of four partners. Among the partners were Babu Ram, Satya Deo and Mahabir Prasad. The firm was dissolved on October 22, 1957. The firm was assessed as such for assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. There were two separate appeals filed against the assessment orders. In the first instance, an appeal was filed by Babu Ram, partner. That appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on July 28, 1962. In the meanwhile, another partner, Mahabir Prasad, filed an independent appeal on May 5, 1962. The appeal of Mahabir Prasad was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on January 8, 1963, on two grounds. Firstly, the appeal was barred by time. Secondly, in view of the prior appeal filed by Babu Ram, partner, another appeal by Mahabir Prasad was not maintainable. Against the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Mahabir Prasad went up in further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench '...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »