Allahabad Court May 1968 Judgments
Devendra Prakash Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR151(All)
Broome, J. 1. These three special appeals are directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Brijlal Gupta J., dated November 23, 1961, Devendra Prakash v. income-tax Officer [1963] 47 I.T.R. 501 , by which he partly allowed three writ petitions (Nos. 841 of 1960 and 842 and 843 of 1961), challenging notices of demand issued by the income-tax authorities on the basis of a rectification order passed under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : There was a partnership business started in the year 1949, in which the partners were Hirday Narain, his major son, Yogendra Prakash, and four minor sons, Surendra Prakash, Gajendra Prakash, Devendra Prakash and Bhupendra Prakash. This firm remained in existence up to July 11, 1952. But from July 12, 1952, it was reconstituted so as to exclude the father, Hirday Narain, and so as to introduce a later born minor son, Satendra Prakash, as a partner. Surendra Prakash had become major in the meantime, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Dass Balmukund Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC282(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in toilet goods, cosmetics and other articles of general merchandise. It submitted a return of its turnover for the assessment year 1963-64. That return included the turnover of imported goods liable to tax at single point under Section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer made an assessment order dated 30th September, 1965, determining the turnover of imported goods at Rs. 2,60,000.00. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act. In the memorandum of appeal it mentioned that the turnover of imported goods taxable at single point was Rs. 85,000 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,001.73 towards the tax admitted by it to be due in respect of that turnover. When the appeal came on for hearing a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Sales Tax Officer that the entire amount of admitted tax had not been deposited by the petitioner. The objection was upheld by the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sale...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›