Allahabad Court September 1969 Judgments
Hajilal Mohammad Bidi Works, Allahabad Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All330; [1970]25STC383(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court:--'Whether, in order to recover interest under Section 8 (1-A) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, it is necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to make an assessment order in respect of the interest and to issue a notice of demand in respect of such interest.'2. In 1963 the Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act was enforced. Section 2 of this Act added Sub-section (1-A) to Section 8 of the principal Act. That provision reads:--'If the tax payable under Sub-section (1) remains unpaid for six months after the expiry of the time specified in the notice of assessment and demand, or the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bikri Kar (Dwitiya Sanshodhan), Adhiniyam, 1963, whichever is later, then without prejudice to any other liability or penalty which the defaulter may in consequence of such non-payment, incur under this Act, simple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarwal Brothers and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR451(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. The question for decision in this income-tax reference is whether a certain firm is entitled to registration. The firm is Messrs. Agrawal Brothers & Co. The firm was originally constituted in the year 1939 with 13 partners. There was a provision in the partnership deed for taking new partners into the firm in case of death or retirement of any partner. The firm was granted registration for the assessment year 1940-41. Registration was renewed from year to year up to the assessment year 1952-53. Owing to a change in the constitution of the firm, the partners drew up a fresh deed of partnership on December 20, 1952. The firm succeeded in having registration renewed for the assessment year 1953-54 also. Fresh deeds of partnership were drawn up in the years 1955, 1956 and 1957. The firm applied for registration for the five succeeding assessment years from 1954-55 to 1958-59. Renewal was refused by the Income-tax Officer for all these assessment years on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Haridwar Dubey Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR704(All)
Mukerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', The material facts are as follows : The assessee, who is the applicant in the case, went to Thailand in 1913 and was employed there as watchman on a salary of Rs. 25 per mensem. He gave up that job and started a timber business in 1936 and set up a saw mill in 1937. Following the invasion of Thailand by the Japanese in World War II the applicant and his wife were arrested as enemy nationals in 1941, but were released after detention for sixteen days. The appellant thereafter continued to carry on his timber business up to the year 1943. Subsequently, however, restrictions were imposed regarding the booking of railway wagons for transporting timber and the applicant had to close down his business and sell away the assets and stock-in-trade for nominal amounts in 1943. The applicant was again arrested in 1944 but he was released after a period of 120 days. He r...
Tag this Judgment!Bijli Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Resident Engineer, Allahabad Electric Supply U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All589
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This writ petition, filed by the Bijli Mazdoor Sangh, representing the employees of the U. P. State Electricity Board in the Allahabad Electric Supply Undertaking, challenges an order passed by the Appellate Authority for Standing Orders on 29-4-1968, allowing an appeal against an order of the Certifying Officer, D/- 23-12-1967, accepting a modification in the Standing Orders relating to the age of superannuation. The contention of the employees was that the Standing Orders framed by the U. P. Electric Supply Company Limited, Allahabad (under the management of Martin & Co., Ltd., of Calcutta) remained in force, even after the concern was taken over by the State Electricity Board in the year 1964. Under those Standing Orders the retirement age was 55. In 1966 this retiring age was raised by the State Electricity Board to 58 years for all employees other than class IV inferior servants and to 60 for class IV inferior servants, by means of a Regulation framed under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Kripa Ram Gupta Vs. R.K. Talwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All296
Gulati, J.1. In this bunch of cases comprising five writ petitions and two Special Appeals, the following two questions concerning the interpretation of Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules have been referred for the opinion of this Full Bench:'1. Whether under Fundamental Rule 56, the age of compulsory retirement is 55 or 58 years?2. Whether the proviso to Clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?'2. The answer to question No. 1, in my opinion, is plain from the language of the rule itself and does not need any elaborate discussion. The material part of Rule 56(a) reads:--'Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a government servant other than a government servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years.' When the rule itself declares that the age of compulsory retirement is 58 years, It is not possible to interpret it to mean that the age of retirement is 55...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR592(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). The assessee is a public limited company, Messrs. J.K. Cotton ., Kanpur. The assessment year is 1944-45. Formerly, a firm 'Juggilal Kamlapat' was the managing agent of the assessee-company. Under an agreement dated August 8, 1941, the managing agents were entitled to work for the assessee-company for a period of 20 years. The managing agents were to charge commission on sales at the rate of 21/2 per cent. The assessee decided to terminate the managing agency of firm Juggilal Kamlapat, and to employ Messrs. J. K. Commercial Corporation as new managing agents, who were to receive commission at the reduced rate of 2 per cent. In order to compensate the firm, Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, the assessee-company paid the former managing agents Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation. The assessee-company claimed this payment of Rs. 2,50,000 as permissible deduction under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad and ors. Vs. Smt. Chandrawati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All309
Gyanendra Kumar, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Trivedi, J. It is not necessary to reiterate the facts of the case which are clearly contained in his judgment. However, it may be recollected that the trial Court had dismissed the suit in toto. But on appeal, it was decreed by the Civil Judge, who granted three reliefs to the plaintiff, viz. (a) ejectment of the defendant Behari Lal (since deceased) from the premises in question, (b) recovery of Rs. 41/- as arrears of rent from 22-10-1958 to 14-12-1958 and (c) recovery of damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 23/- per month from the date of termination of tenancy to the date of defendant's ejectment2. It cannot be doubted that so far as the decree for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation is concerned, the present appellants (who are the personal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant, Behari Lal) would be liable to pay the same to the extent of the assets inherited b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Late Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR702(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Kanhaiya Lal is the assessee. He was assessed as an individual for three assessment years, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59. He was also the head of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his three sons. On November 19, 1955, Kanhaiya Lal executed a deed of declaration. In that document he declared that certain property detailed in the deed formed part of the joint family property. The Income-tax: Officer took the view that that declaration in the deed dated November 19, 1955, was ineffective, and the property in question was property of Kanhaiya Lal as an individual. He was, therefore, assessed on that basis. This decision was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the assessee succeeded before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the property in question belonged to the Hindu undivided family, and that it could not be assessed in the hands of Kanhaiya Lal as an ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All380; 1970CriLJ948
ORDERB.D. Gupta, J. 1. One Kam Prasad filed a complaint against ten persons who are arrayed as the applicants in Criminal Revision No. 787 of 1966. In the complaint it was alleged that these ten persons had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149, I. P. C. As some of the offences alleged were ex-clusively triable by a Court of Session the Additional District Magistrate proceeded to enquire into the matter and recorded evidence led by the parties and, by order dated the 24th of February, 1966, he discharged all the ten persons. Against the aforesaid order the complainant approached the learned Sessions Judge in revision. By order dated the 27th of April, 1966, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to commit the case to the Sessions. Against the order of the learned Sessions Judge the ten accused persons approached this Court praying for an order of this Court setting aside the o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gauri Shanker Chandra Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: [1972]83ITR83(All)
Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee was a Hindu undivided family. At one time the family consisted of Gauri Shanker and his three sons. The family was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1946-47. The corresponding accounting period was from 13th April, 1945, to 2nd April. 1946. On 19th March, 1957, an application was moved before the Income-tax Officer claiming that a partition had taken place in the family on 22nd June, 1956. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied on this point. On 26th March, 1962, he recorded an order under Section 25A(1) of the Act to the effect that partition had taken place with effect from 22nd June, 1956. 2. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Hindu undivided family. On 15th March, 1957, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act should not be imposed o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »