Allahabad Court March 1969 Judgments
Thakur Das Tej Prakash Vs. Income-tax Officer, D-ward and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR523(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This special appeal arises out of proceedings for reassessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Messrs. Thakur Das Tej Prakash are the assessees. In the assessment year 1953-54 the assessee's assessable income was determined at Rs. 12,858 from his business. The loss of earlier years amounting to Rs. 84,039 which was from money-lending business, was brought forward from the previous year, and was set off against assessee's income of Rs. 12,858. Calculation was made on these lines for assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 also. Another officer, at the time of making assessment for the year 1956-57, detected the mistake under Section 24(2) of the Act. This officer, therefore, issued notice to the assessees under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act for reassessment. This notice under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act was challenged by the assessees by filing a writ petition in this court. The writ petition has been dismissed by a single judge of this court. The assesses have, there...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indo Arts
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC342(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, the instant reference has been made to us and the following question has been submitted for our opinion :Whether booklets, folders and brochures are books for the purposes of exemption under Section 4.2. The assessee in this case is M/s. Indo Arts, which is a dealer for purposes of the assessment (hereinafter referred to as the 'dealer') under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the assessment proceedings started for the year 1957-58 there was a controversy between the dealer and the assessing officer as to whether the turnover of books, magazines, brochures, booklets and folders was liable to tax or not in view of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The assessing officer repelled the submission of the dealer and assessed the dealer. The Assistant Commissioner (J.) allowed the dealer's appeal and excluded the turnover. The Commissioner filed a revision ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Uttaer Pradesh Vs. Trilok Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ617
Hari Swarup, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal against the order of the Session Judge, Dehradun dated the 23rd March, 1965 by which he allowed the appeal of Trilok Chand against his conviction under Section 454, I. P. C, and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 awarded by Sri C.N. Srivastava, ' Magistrate First Class, Dehradun, and acquitted him. The learned Magistrate had directed that the amount of Rs. 2706 recovered from the house of the accused be paid to the complainant. The Sessions Judge directed on allowing the appeal that it be returned to the accused.2. The case for the prosecution in brief was that Inder Singh had a milk shop in his house in Doiwala, Police Circle Clement town, district Dehradun. He had collected money a few days earlier and had kept it in his cash box in the shop. It was a sum of Rs. 3200. On 13th January, 1964 at about 8 a. m. he went to the bus stand for going out, but by mistake left the milk measuring ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Sri Harkesh Vs. Election Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All146
H. Swarup, J.1. This petition has been filed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Tribunal dated 1-11-1966 dismissing the Election Petition No. 2 of 1965 filed by Hari Ram against the election of Habibullah as the Chairman of the Town Area Committee Shahpur held on 11-11-1964.2. The result of the election was declared on 12-11-1964. At the election Habibullah secured 952 votes, Hari Ram petitioner 938 and Mohd. Husain Khan secured 425 votes. Habibullah was declared elected. The contention of the election petitioner was that Habibullah himself and through his workers, agents and supporters had canvassed for the votes on the ground of religion and community and such canvassing had affected materially the result of the election. He had also challenged the election on the ground that certain votes of his had been wrongly rejected while some cast in favour of Habibullah had been wrongly included. Habibullah. respondent No. 2, denied the alle...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kalawati and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR96(All)
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court arises in the following circumstances:One Phool Chand was assessed to income-tax under the name and style of Sheo Prasad Phool Chand. He did not pay the income-tax dues. The Income-tax Officer concerned issued a certificate for realisation of the tax dues to the Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act and he proceeded to recover the tax dues as arrears of land revenue. Three houses situate in Kanpur City were attached by the Collector for sale by auction. Smt. Kalawati and her son, Binda Prasad, made an application before the Collector stating that the houses attached belonged to the applicants with which the assessee, Phool Chand, had nothing to do and the same be released from attachment. The Collector rejected that application, taking the view that under the law no such application could be entertained. An appeal against this order of the Collector was ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijai NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All241
B.B. Misra, J. 1. This reference toa Full Bench arises out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding the U. P. Government to withdraw its Notification dated June 29, 1968, directing that Oath Commissioners appointed by District Judge under Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not authorised to verify affidavits relating to the proceedingsbefore the various authorities constituted under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 5 of 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The six petitioners, who are lawyers of Azamgarh, were appointed Oath Commissioners by the District Judge of that place by his order dated 19-7-1966 passed under the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Originally, affidavits to be filed, inter alia, before the various authorities constituted under the Act, used to be verified by the petitioners, the propriety of which was also recognised by the U. P. Government under its G. O. No. 314...
Tag this Judgment!Qadir Bux Vs. Ramchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All289
S.D. Khare, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court hearing this second appeal framed the following question and referred it to a Division Bench:--'If a plaintiff claims possession against the defendant alleging him to be his tenant and fails to prove the tenancy set up by him, whether in such a case Article 142 of the Limitation Act will apply or Article 144 of the Limitation Act?'2. It was noticed by the Division Bench that there was apparent conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court as to how the aforesaid question be answered, and, therefore, it referred the same for the consideration of this Full Bench.3. The suit giving rise to the second appeal was instituted on the allegations that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff of a small portion of the land in dispute and had, after obtaining his permission and promising to pay rent, built a thatched construction on it six or seven years before the institution of the suit. It was further alleged that the def...
Tag this Judgment!Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Civil Judge, Bijnor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All130
Dwivedi, J.1. M/s. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company) has filed this writ petition. It appears that the Company did not file a statement in respect of its holdings as required by Section 9 of the Imposition of Ceiling on Landholdings Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Prescribed Authority accordingly prepared a statement of its holdings, mentioning the plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. This statement was served upon it in accordance with Section 10 (2). It was required to show cause why the statement should not be taken to be correct. The Company filed an objection. While the objection was pending, the Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., the fourth respondent, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority. The respondent claimed to be the exclusive tenure-holder of certain plots mentioned in the statement and wanted to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application. On appeal, the Civil Judge has se...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR464(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. In these four connected writ petitions the same question of law arises and for that reason they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Petitions Nos. 3251 of 1968 and 3252 of 1968 have been filed by M/s. J.K. Commercial Corporation Ltd. The first writ petition is in connection with the assessment year 1955-56 and the second one relates to the year 1956-57.3. Writ Petitions Nos. 3253 of 1968 and 3254 of 1968 have been filed by M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. The first one relates to the year 1955-56 and the second one relates to the year 1956-57. The petitioners were assessed in respect of the years mentioned above by the Income-tax Officer. Subsequent to the assessment, the Income-tax Officer concerned started proceedings under Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, against the petitioners and passed an order under that section. However, later on, under Section 35 of the Act he wanted to rectify the order passed under Section 23A. The petitioners objected ...
Tag this Judgment!The Swan Bangle Stores Vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC122(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The facts are set out in the judgment proposed by my brother Gulati.2. The question is whether plain glass bangles and ornamented glass bangles are to be regarded as essentially the same commercial commodity or can they be considered as two distinct, commercial commodities.3. Glass bangles constitute a commodity which is well known. They may be plain or cut or ornamented. They are manufactured in their plain state. With some processing indentations are cut into plain bangles, and they lake the appearance of cut glass bangles. The indentations may be filled with liquid gold to give the bangles an ornamented appearance. In each case what is done is to put the glass bangles through a further process. The consequence of the processing is to give a slightly different appearance to the surface of the glass bangles. Essentially, the glass bangle continues to be the same article. The processing does not result in the emergence of a new commercial commodity and it cannot be sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »