Allahabad Court November 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Aftab HusaIn Imdad Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC471(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The Additional Revising Authority (Sales Tax), Varanasi, has submitted this reference under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :Kiya steel box lohe ki bani vastu (hardware) hai ya nahin?2. The firm of M/s. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain of Varanasi is the assessee. It manufactures and sells steel trunks. Prior to the assessment year 1962-63 the turnover of steel trunks used to be assessed under Section 3 of the Act at the rate specified therein which at the material time was 2 per cent. For the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 the rate of tax was enhanced to 3 per cent.on the view that steel trunks fall within the definition of 'hardware' which was a commodity assessable at a higher rate. The assessee appealed and the Judge (Appeals) accepted its contention that steel trunks were not an item of hardware. The Commissioner of Sales Tax went up in revision, but the revising authority also upheld the order...
Model Sanitary House Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC82(All)
1. The assessee carries on business as a dealer in sanitary goods. For the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 the assessee was assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the turnover of those goods. The sanitary goods included cisterns, pipes, wash-basins etc. The Sales Tax Officer treated the commodities included in the turnover as 'sanitary fittings' within the meaning of that expression in entry No. 36 in the list appended to Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956 and accordingly applied the rate of 0-1-0 per rupee to that turnover. The assessee appealed and contended that wash-basins could not be included in the expression 'sanitary fittings' but must be described as 'sanitary wares'. The contention was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax and the appeals were allowed. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied in revision and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has allowed the revision applications holding that all the items were correctly included ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kakaram Magharam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC223(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The assessee carried on business as a dealer of cloth and was ordinarily liable to assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I, Kanpur Circle. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1953-54 were pending under Rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, when the Commissioner of Sales Tax transferred the case of the assessee to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, in the same circle under Rule 81 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, made an assessment order dated 23rd April, 1965, determining the turnover of imported cloth at 365 bales. Subsequently, upon information received that the assessee had imported 4501/2 bales and not merely 365 bales, proceedings were initiated under Section 21 of the Act for assessing the escaped turnover. The reassessment, proceedings were taken by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I. Against that assessment the assessee filed an appeal and contended that the case having been transferred ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gulab Rai Govind Pd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR354(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J. 1. The question for consideration in this income-tax reference is whether a certain transaction amounts to a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition for repurchase. Facts leading to the transaction in question are complicated. The material facts are these:The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, which was carrying on money-lending business for many years. On February 17, 1928, the assessee advanced a loan of Rs. 1,40,000 to Thakur Raghuraj Singh. The loan was secured on a simple mortgage of six zamindari villages for a period of five years. On October 25, 1931, the assessee advanced another loan of Rs. 1,53,000 to the same party. This loan was secured by a simple mortgage covering fifteen villages included in the first mortgage. The period of the second mortgage ended with the end of the first mortgage. The debtor failed to pay the amounts due under the two mortgages. On April 25, 1933, the assessee filed a suit against Thakur Raghuraj Singh to recover t...
Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR690(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J. 1. This is a case stated by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1959-60. 2. The assessee is a company limited by shares. In the assessment of its total income for the assessment year 1959-60, it claimed the amount ofwealth-tax paid by it for the same assessment year as an allowable deduction. The assessee also contributed in the relevant previous year a sum of Rs. 41,430 to the Government in pursuance of a scheme for development of roads in cane-growing rural areas. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of this amount on the ground that its business of manufacturing sugar depends chiefly on development of roads for transportation of sugar-cane into its manufactory. Hence, it was claimed that the expenditure in question must be considered to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. Both the claims were tu...
Raja Jagdambika Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer, Faizabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR619(All)
V. G. OAK C.J. - The question raised in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., was competent to cancel a pervious order passed by him allowing interest on excess income-tax paid by an assessee. Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh is the assessee. The assessment year was 1947-48. At the time of the assessment for that year the Income=tax Officer took the view that 74 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1000 each, represented the assessees income during the previous year. When the matter went before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal agrees to reduce the amount of add-back from Rs. 74,000 to Rs. 34,000. At the instance of the assessee the following question of law was referred to this court :'Whether there was material for assessing the sun of Rs. 34,000 represented by 34 notes of Rs. 1,000 each and cashed by the assessee under the High Denomination Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1947, as income chargeable to income...
Raghunandan Prasad Mohan Lal, Bareilly Vs. the Income Tax Appellate Tr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All620; [1970]75ITR741(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the facts giving rise to it are briefly these. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which runs a flour, oil and rice mill at Bareilly, in the name and style of M/s. Raghunandan Prasad Mohan Lal. On December, 29, 1959, it filed its return for the assessment year 1959-60 showing a net profit of Rs. 22,674. Later, a revised return was filed by it on February 1, 1962, showing a loss of Rs, 3,940, on the ground that in the earlier return the liability for sales tax had not been deducted. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the petitioner's return and by his order dated March 30, 1964 assessed it at a net income of Rs. 82,662. The petitioner appealed. At the time of the hearing of the appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax found that there were certain deposits in the petitioner's bank account which had not been properly explained and the partners had not withdrawn any amount from the part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›