Allahabad Court December 1968 Judgments
Hari Raj Swarup and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1968
Reported in: [1970]77ITR853(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24(4) of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, and the question referred for the opinion of this court is:' Whether the partition decree could be ignored on the ground that the coparceners and their wives still lived and ate jointly and did their business of cultivation jointly '2. Three brothers, Hari Raj Swarup, Brahma Raj Swarup and Gopal Raj Swarup, along with their respective wives and sons constituted a joint Hindu family. In assessment proceedings for the year 1359 Fasli, under the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, it was urged by the assessees that the joint Hindu family had suffered partition resulting in the complete disruption of the family as a result of which all the members had become separate from each other. It was claimed that the agricultural income should be assessed separately in the hands of each divided member according to his share. The assessing officer accepted the partition as one between the three branches...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Devi Ghulam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1968
Reported in: [1968]24STC243(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act submitted by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Lucknow, for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law:Whether under the circumstances of this case exemption fee ought to have been deposited as contemplated by the proviso to Section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act2. The assessee who carries on business in foodgrain at Kanpur, applied for exemption under Rule 20-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules in respect of its turnover of foodgrain for the assessment year 1956-57. The turnover of foodgrain on which, according to the assessee, the exemption fee was payable was a sum of Rs. 25,000. The Sales Tax Officer, however, did not accept the figure of turnover and assessed the same at Rs. 75,000 and demanded a sum of Rs. 750 as exemption fee. The assessee appealed. A preliminary point was raised that as the assessee had failed to deposit even the admitted exemption fee of Rs. 150, the appeal was not mainta...
Tag this Judgment!Chitawan and ors. Vs. Mahboob Ilahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ378
ORDERD.D. Seth, J.1. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1466 of 1968 has been filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by Chitawan and others praying that the application be allowed and Criminal Reference No. 210 of 1967, which has been made to this Court by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, and which had been accepted by me, by my order dated 5th April 1968, be reheard.2. On 5th April 1968, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I had accepted Criminal Reference No. 210 of 1967 made to this Court by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and had set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phulpur, dated 31st December 1966, releasing the land in dispute in favour of Chitawan and others and ordered the property to be released in favour of Mahboob Ilahi. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1466 of 1968 made under the provisions of Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, was filed in this Court on 15th April 1968.3. The facts of Crim...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap NaraIn Agarwal Vs. Ragho Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All15
Satish Chandra, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court had referred the following question to a Full Bench:--'Where an execution proceeding is commenced after the enforcement of the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954, for executing a decree passed after the commencement of the said Act in a suit instituted in 1934 and valued at less than Rs. 10,000 but more than Rs. 5000, will an appeal from an order passed in such an execution proceeding lie in this Court or in the Court of the District Judge?' The question arises in this way. Bishambhernath Khazanchi filed a suit (No. 21 of 1934) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Agra, for partition and possession. The suit was valued at Rs. 7162/8. On 5th September, 1959, a final decree for partition and possession of a one-fourth share of the plaintiff was prononounced. The value of the plaintiff's share was determined at Rs. 27,278. An application to execute the decree was filed on 17th February, 1965. The judgment-debtors-respond...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: [1968]24STC245(All)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. In this and the connected reference the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has referred the following question :Whether feats, towels and bed-sheets are to be treated as cloth chargeable under Section 3-A or as unclassified items ?2. The assessee was assessed to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Sales Tax Officer treated fents, towels and bed-sheets as falling within the description of 'cloth of all kinds, including dhotis, saris and bed-sheets' mentioned at entry No. 5 in the list appended to Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, made under Section 3-A of the Act. He rejected the contention of the assessee that fents, towels and bed-sheets did not fall within the scope of that entry. The finding of the Sales Tax Officer was confirmed on appeal by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax. A revision application by the assessee for each of the two assessment years was also dismissed by the Judge (Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Prema Devi Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation (Head Quarter) at ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All238
B. Dayal, J. 1. These two connected writ petitions filed by Smt. Prema Devi, widow of Asharfilal and Satnarainlal and other have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single judge of this Court as he found it difficult to agree with a single judge decision of this Court Ram Jag Mistri v. Deputy Director of Consolidatio : AIR1968All419 . The facts of the case are now no more in dispute and have been decided finally by the Joint Director of Consolidation who, in turn, accepted the findings of fact arrived at in Second Appeal by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The relevant facts may now be stated in short. One Udaibhan Lal had four sons, namely, Bhagwati Pd., Satya Narain Lal, Daya Shankar Lal and Asharfi Lal, Smt PremaDevi is the widow of Asharfi Lal, who died in the lifetime of his father Udaibhan Lal. When Udaibhan Lal died in 1936, he left zamindari as also sir and khudkasht plots. On the death of Udaibhan Lal, the names of his three surviving sons, namely, Bhagwati Pd,...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaon Motor Owners' Union Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ809All
Lakshmi Prasad, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The workmen of the petitioner claimed bonus for the year 1964-65. The petitioner denied its liability to pay bonus on the ground that it had actually suffered loss during that particular year. The dispute thus raised by the workmen was espoused by opposite party 3. Since reconciliation could not be reached between the petitioner and opposite party 3, the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party 1, treating it to be an industrial dispute referred it to opposite party 2, After receiving written statements and replies of the disputants opposite party 2 framed the following issues:(1) Whether the employer-company did not incur any loss in the year 1964-65 and whether the accounts filed are incorrect ?(2) Whether the employer-company is not liable to pay even the minimum bonus under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?(3) Whether the claim of the workmen for bonus was unreasonably belated, and if so, its e...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gauri Devi Vs. Bishwanath Banerjee
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1970All185; 1970CriLJ310
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court to the effect that the suit to be reheard and decided in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the lower appellate Court.2. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed by Vishwanath Banerji, the plaintiff-respondent, in the Court of the Munsif of Varanasi for a declaration that an order dated 19-7-1961 passed by Sri H. K. Sharma, Magistrate First Class, Deoghar District Santhal Parganas Bihar in Criminal Case No. 376 of 1961, misc., case No. 125 of 1961, Smt. Gauri Banerji v. Vishwanath Banerji, under Section 488, Criminal P.C., was illegal, ultra vires, void, ineffective and unenforceable and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking any steps to realise by distress warrants or otherwise any sum of money from the plaintiff in pursuance of the said order. Admittedly Vishwanath Banerji and Smt. Gauri Banerji are husband an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Achal Ram Sewak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR501(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. These are three connected applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Messrs. Ram Achal Ram Sewak, Akbarpur, are the assessees. The Income-tax Officer, Faizabad, noticed that the assessees had made deposits in a number of banks from the year 1959-60 to the year 1965-66. These deposits were treated by the Income-tax Officer as the assessees' income from undisclosed source. Assessment was made accordingly. The decision was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessees filed a number of appeals against the various assessment orders. The connected appeals were disposed of by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, by a consolidated judgment, dated April 13, 1967. The appeals were allowed with respect to assessment years 1959-60 and 1961-62. It was held that the deposits appearing for the two assessment years could be explained by the additional income assessed during the previous years. The appeal was partly allowed as reg...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR512(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. The question raised in this reference relates to the situs of accrual of income being remuneration paid to a director of a company limited by shares.2. The assessee was one of the six directors of M/s. Straw Products Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the company). The company was registered in Bhopal where the manufacturing operations were carried on. At all material times, Bhopal was an Indian State to which the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it then stood (hereafter referred to as the Act), did not apply.3. The directors were entitled to receive sitting fees for attending meetings of the board under Article 105A and further remuneration from the company under Article 105B of the articles of association, the terms of which were as follows :'In the event of the company making profits, the directors shall be entitled to appropriate out of such profits, either a sum which is sufficient to allow a further remuneration of Rs. 5,000 to each director or a sum equal to 5 per...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »