Allahabad Court September 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.
R.K.B. One Mills Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC321(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1963-64 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The turnover was assessed at the rate of 10% and the benefit of the concessional rate incorporated in Section 8(1)(b) of the Act was not extended to the petitioner because he did not file any Form 'C' in respect of the relevant sales. The assessment order was made on 29th October, 1965. Subsequently it is said, the petitioner received the 'C' Forms from the purchasing dealers. He made an application under Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to the Sales Tax Officer for amending the assessment order after taking into consideration the 'C' Forms. On 13th April, 1966, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the application. Thereafter the petitioner field a revision application. That application was dismissed on 29th September, 1967, by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. Then the petitioner made another application before the Additional Judge (Revisions), this time...
Jafar A. Majeed Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC95(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in handspun woollen yarn. For the first quarter of the assessment year 1968-69 it filed a return under the U.P. Sales Tax Act of its turnover of such yarn but claimed that it was exempt from sales tax. The petitioner did not deposit any tax in respect of the turnover. The Sales Tax Officer served a notice on the petitioner calling upon it to show cause why an assessment should not be made under Rule 41(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules on account of the failure of the petitioner to deposit the tax.2. The petitioner took the position that the sales were exempt from sales tax and no tax was payable. The Sales Tax Officer, however, made an assessment order under Rule 41(3) assessing the disclosed sales of handspun woollen yarn to sales tax. Aggrieved by that assessment, the petitioner now prays for certiorari.3. It is not disputed that in the return filed by the petitioner while it disclosed the sales of handspun wo...
Bisheshwar Lal Vs. Income-tax, Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR698(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against penalty proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, ^hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There was a firm, Rameshwar Lal Bisheshwar Lal, consisting of two partners, Bisheshwar Lal and Rameshwar Lal, who were brothers. The firm was assessed to income-tax for four assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1948-49. The assessee-firm successively appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Both these appellate authorities gave some relief to the assessee for the four assessment years. Between October 5, 1949, and August 10, 1961, the Income-tax Officer, Goiida, issued a series of notices to the firm calling upon it to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on the assessee-firm under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the firm concealed its income relevant to the four assessment years. The firm sent several replies to the effect that ther...
Dewan Sugar and General Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR572(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J. 1. This is a reference under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Messrs. Dewan Sugar and General Mills P. Ltd., Meerut, are the assessee. The assessment years are 1956-57 and 1957-58. The relevant previous years ended on June 30, 1954, and June 30, 1955, respectively. During the two accounting periods the assessee-company paid two sums of Rs. 40.000 and Rs. 3,000 as contribution to the Cane Centre Roads Development Fund. The assessee claimed these two amounts as deductionunder Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act, The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. This decision was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Appellate Tribunal. At the request of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 40,000 in the assessment year 1956-57 and Rs. 3,000 in the assessment year 1957-58 were rightly treated as capital expenditure ' ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Shiv NaraIn Rameshwar Pd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC299(All)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The Sales Tax Officer made an assessment order for the assessment year 1957-58 under the Central Sales Tax Act and two assessment orders for the assessment year 1958-59, one under the Central Sales Tax Act and the other under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was dissatisfied by the assessment order and filed a revision application against each of them. Admittedly, the three revision applications were filed more than one year after the date on which the assessment orders were made. Before the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, an objection was taken by the dealer that the revision applications were barred by time. The objection was upheld and the Judge (Revisions) dismissed the revision applications on that ground. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, this and the connected references have been made on the following common question of law:Whether under the circumstances of the case the limitation started from the date of the assessment and ...
B. Malik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970All268
Dwivedi, J.1. I have read the judgments of my brothers G. C. Mathur and Gangeshwar Prasad, and I entirely agree with them that these petitions should be dismissed. As the matter is obviously of importance, I have thought it proper to deal with certain aspects in my own way.2. The Constitutional History before January 26, 1950 is not relevant. It is not necessary to refer to it. By virtue of Article 376(1) all pre-Constitution Judges became Judges under the Constitution. Their salaries, allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension are determined not by any pre-Constitution law of its own force but under Article 221 of the Constitution. So In respect of these matters there is no difference between pre-Constitution Judges and post-Constitution Judges. Both of them derive rights from one common source-Article 221.3. Article 221(1) settles the salary of the Judges, Article 221(2) deals with their allowances, and rights in respect of leave of absence and pension. Our imm...
Bajrang Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR309(All)
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. The assessee was an 'individual'. The assessment year was 1958-59 for which the relevant accounting year was the year ending October 22, 1937. The assessee held 1/5th share in the firm of M/s. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal, Azamgarh. He had four sons, namely. Lakshmi Narain Dalmia who was an adult on the relevant date and three minor sons, namely, Sarvasri Bansari Lai, Radhey Shyam and Girdhari Lal. The firm in question was constituted under an indenture made on November 3, 1956. The said partnership deed is on record and indicates that the partnership was started by the assessee and his adult son, Lakshmi Narain Dalmia. The minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in the firm. Under Clause 6 of the partnership deed the parties (the assessee and Lakshmi Narain Dalmia) were entitled to the profits earned and had to contribute to the losses sustained by the firm in accordance with their respective shares which were l/5th share each. Clause 7 of the partner...
Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. Vs. Raja Ram Sri NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR402(All)
S.K. Verma, J. 1. This is a decree-holder's application in revision and it arises out of the following facts.2. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as ' the bank ') had obtained a decree for a sum of. Rs. 32,000 from the Court of the 1st Additional Civil, Judge of Kanpur in Suit No. 132 of 1958 against Messrs. Raja Ram Sri Narain and Smt. Naraini Devi, widow of Raja Ram. The bank put the decree in execution and attached house No. 24/88-A, Birhana Road, Kanpur. The house was sold on the 4th of September, 1961 for a sum of Rs. 1,11,000.Another firm of Bombay, Messrs. Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay firm'), had a decree of a Bombay court against Sri Narain, about whom it was said that he was carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs. Raja Ram Sri Narain. This decree was transmitted to the Court of the 1st Civil Judge of Kanpur for execution. When the house was sold, the Bombay firm applied in the Court of the 1st Civil Judge for attachment ...
Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR520(All)
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee, Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills Ltd. 4s a private limited company. Another firm, ' Devi Dutt Chaturbhuj,' Gorakhpur', was the managing agent of the assessee-company. Under the managing agency agreement, a sum of Rs. 55,359 was payable by the assessee to the managing agent as commission. The assessment year is 1950-51. The corresponding previous year ended on September 30, 1949. At first the assessee-company made a debit entry in its account books for the sum or Rs. 55,359 towards commission of the managing agent. But the managing agent agreed to forgo the commission. Consequently, entries were reversed in the books of the assessee-company. The result was that there was no debit under this head in the profit and loss account of the assessee-company. The question arose at the time of the deduction of Rs. 55,359 as expenditure during the previous year. The Income-tax Officer decided that ...
Smt. Parbati Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR625(All)
1. These four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against four orders of assessment under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereafter referred to as the Act. The fact of the four cases are similar. These cases raise common questions of law. It will, therefore, be sufficient to refer to the facts of one of the four cases.2. Smt. Parbati Devi is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3316 of 1968. On June 26, 1952, she invested a sum of Rs. 22,000 as her share in the capital of a certain partnership firm, which worked under the name and style of M/s. Shanker Iron Foundry. A notice under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was issued against the firm for the assessment year 1953-54. On February 28, 1966, the petitioner filed a voluntary return of her own income for the assessment year 1953-54. On the basis of the petitioner's voluntary return the Income-tax Officer, Varanasi, passed an assessment order against the petitioner on April 1, 1966. On the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›