Allahabad Court February 1970 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.
Abbas Ali Meerza Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty, U.P., Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All167; [1970]78ITR759(All)
Mukerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (as it stood prior to the amendment by the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act of 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question referred by the Board for the opinion of this Court is as follows: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the following house properties in the estate of the deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is justified in law:-- (i) Afzal Manzil; (ii) Khiliaganj; (iii) Golaganj ?' 2. The material facts are as follows. The three properties mentioned in the question referred to above, originally, formed a part of the estate of the deceased the late Shri Ishaque Ali Meerza (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who died on December 2, 1954. The applicant, Shri Abbas Ali Meerza, is the son of the deceased and an accountable per...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Onkar Singh Johari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All246; [1971(21)FLR261]
J.S. Trivedi, J.1. The plaintiff respondent was a Travelling Ticket Examiner in the North Eastern Railway and on 11-8-59 he was working as such on the 39 Up Passenger between Pilibhit and Shahjahanpur. The said train was raided by the Magisterial Checking Squad. One of the first class compartments of the said train was found bolted from inside. After the said compartment was opened the plaintiff was found asleep in the said compartment. Besides him two others passengers who were travelling without ticket in the same compartment were produced before the Magistrate and during their trial it was disclosed that they were travelling with the permission of the plaintiff-respondent. The District Traffic Superintendent ordered an enquiry against the plaintiff-respondent. One Shri H. R. Bhagga, the then Assistant Traffic Superintendent Izatnagar, was appointed the enquiring officer. Sri Bhagga found the charges of serious misconduct established against the plaintiff. He submitted the result of ...
Saeed Ahmad Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1970
Reported in: [1971]79ITR28(All)
G.D. Sehgal, J.1. The petitioner is a railway contractor and carries on business under the name and style of M/s. Saeed Ahmad and Sons. He filed an income-tax return for the assessment year 1964-65 before the Income-tax Officer B-Ward, Circle II, Lucknow, opposite party No. 2, indicating an income of Rs. 23,968.00. The amount of income in the return filed was arrived at as follows:Rs.(a)Coal handling contract of N. E, Railway, Charbagh Zone. Total payments received (fully backed by the certificate of payments from the disbursing department filed with the I.T.O.) Net flat rate of profit estimated = 7% profit worked out to137,47534 9,62500(b)Engimneering contract at Lucknow. Total paymentsreceived (as per certificate ofpayment from the disbursing officer filed with the I. T. O.54,89500Net rate of profit estimated =7% profit worked out to 3,84300(c)Purchase of- foundry clinckers of N. Railway-Totalpurchases (as per sale ordersin original filed with the I.T.O.)1,44,60000Estimated sale1,50,...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Free India Cycle Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC428(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, has solicited the opinion of this court on the following two questions :-1. Whether rexine covers manufactured by the assessee being used only to protect the saddle seat can be called cycle parts or accessories to cycles and taxed at 5 per cent. during 1963-64 under Notification No. ST- 1363/X-1045(19)/60 dated 5th April, 1961?2. If not and they are only accessories to cycle parts, whether even accessories to cycle parts can be taxed at 5 per cent. under item No. 34 of the said notification?2. The assessee, M/s. Free India Cycle Industries, is a dealer in cycles and cycle goods which it purchases locally or imports from outside Uttar Pradesh. In respect of the assessment year 1963-64, it was assessed to sales tax on the turnover of imported cycle goods as well as on the turnover of rexine saddle covers and pads manufactured by it at the rate of 5 per cent.3. The assessee's contention that a rexine cover is neither a pa...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Brijvasi Traders
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC55(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. Under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Agra, has at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, submitted this statement of the case with the following question of law for our opinion:Whether the rexine covers and pads are cycle parts or accessories as mentioned in Notification No. S.T. 187/X-900(15)/61 dated 13th May, 1963, and taxable as such or as unclassified articles taxable at 2 per cent.? 2. The assessee M/s. Brijvasi Traders of Agra carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cycle seat covers and pads made of rexine. The assessment years involved are 1961-62 and 1962-63.3. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Free India Cycle Industries (S.T.R. No. 574 of 1968 decided on 26th February, 1970) Since reported at [1970] 26 S.T.C. 428, we have held that rexine covers for cycle seats and pads are neither cycle parts nor accessories within the meaning of the notification referred to in th...
Abul Khair and Ors. Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Judicatur ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All44
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This writ petition, filed by eight Upper Division Assistants of the General Office of the High Court at Allahabad, is directed against an order of the Chief Justice dated 1-3-1969, by which the petitioners' objections against a draft gradation list prepared by the Additional Registrar were rejected and the seniority of Mahesh Prasad Srivastava and Sushil Kumar (respondents 4 and 5), who were originally Translators but had been absorbed in the cadre of Upper Division Assistants in 1964 and 1967 respectively, was fixed in such a manner as to make them senior to the petitioners. The first prayer set forth in the petition asks for the quashing of certain earlier orders of the Chief Justice as well, but Mr. S. N. Kacker, who appears for the petitioners, has stated that it is not necessary to quash those earlier orders and that he confines this prayer to the quashing of the last order dated 1-3-1969. In addition, the petitioners challenge the promotion of Mahesh Prasad S...
Agarwal Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR312(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, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant previous year being the calendar year ended on December 31, 1956. The question referred is : 'Whether the assessee's contention that the sum of Rs. 60,000 is. exempt from assessment by virtue of Finance Department Notification No. 878(F), dated March 21, 1922, is tenable?'2. The material facts are these. The assessee in the relevant year was a firm of two partners with equal shares and it was accorded registration in the year of account. The assessee-firm was appointed as the managing agent of Messrs. Dhplpur Glass Works Ltd., a public company, under an agreement dated. February 18, 1945. In terms of this agreement the assessee-firm was entitled to receive an office allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem and a managing agency commission of 12 1/2% of the net p...
Syed Alley Eba Rizvi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All107; 1971CriLJ359
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi. an Advocate practising in the district of Sultanpur.2. The brief facts leading to this application are these:3. One Allah Rahman was tried for theft of a bullock under Section 379. I. P. C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur. He was being defended by the Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, in the said case. In defence a receipt Ext. Kha-1 was filed before the said Magistrate through a list of documents under the signature of Syed Alley Eba Rizvi with the endorsement 'through Syed Alley Eba Rizvi.' On the basis of this receipt it was sought to be proved by the accused that the bullock belonged to him having been purchased by him from Mohammad Hanif. This plea of the accused was disbelieved by the Magistrate who found also that the receipt had been forged for the purposes of the case. Allah Rahman was convicted and sentenced under Section 379, I....
Rikhab Dass Vs. Smt. Chandro and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All234
ORDERT.P. Mukerjee, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a plaintiff. The material facts are that the plaintiff-applicant had filed a suit against the opposite party for recovery of Rs. 250/- on the basis of a pronote dated 30th April, 1961. The suit was initially filed in the Panchayati Adalat and it was decreed by that Court. The defendant-opposite party filed an application in revision before the learned Munsif under Section 89 of the Pan-chayat Raj Act (U. P. Act No. 26 of 1947) against the decree passed by the Panchayati Adalat. The learned Munsif found that the Panchayati Adalat had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. The order of the learned Munsif directing return of the plaint was made on the 6th March, 1965. The plaintiff took back the plaint of the suit and filed it in the Small Cause Court on the 23rd March, 1965.2. The Judge, Small Cause Court found that the suit was...
Mahadeo Ram Ram Jatan Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC186(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act read with Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act submitted by the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi, for the opinion of this court on the following two questions of law :-(1) Whether the applicant-firm is entitled to obtain 'C' forms even when the firm has ceased to exist for their old purchases ?(2) Whether this firm is authorised for the issuance of 'C' forms for supplying them to the various parties having its old registration number ?2. It appears that a partnership firm carried on business in kairana at Ballia. It was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. On 6th December, 1967, one of its partners died and the firm was reconstituted by the remaining partners which continued the business in the firm name of M/s. Mahadeo Ram Ram Jatan Ram. At the time of the reconstitution of the firm the registration certificate in the name of the old firm as also the 'C' forms obtained in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »