Allahabad Court July 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.
Security Printers of India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR766(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. The present reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', raises the question of disallowance of certain pre-incorporation expenses incurred bythe promoters of the company. The material facts are these : M/s. Security. Printers of India (P.) Ltd., hereafter referred to as 'the assessee', was incorporated on April 6, 1957, with a view to execute jobs of security printing such as printing of cheques, drafts, fixed deposit receipts and life papers for Indian banks. The printing of these forms was never before done in India in printing presses. The Indian branches of foreign banks used to get their security printing jobs executed by M/s. W. W. Sprague and Co. Ltd. of London, hereafter referred to as 'the London company'. Mr. M.C. Khunna, managing director of Job Press Ltd., Kanpur, conceived the idea of executing these jobs in India in collaboration with the Londoncompany. Accordingly, he entered into an agreement with ...
Shrimati Sarwari Kahtoon Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR719(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act', on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share in the two properties known as Burlington Hotel and Hakman's Hotel, taken by the applicant under the decree dated the 1st September, 1950, of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, was correctly treated as property deemed to pass on the death of the deceased ?'2. The material facts giving rise to this referrence are as follows : The two hotels, hereinafter referred to as the said property, belonged to late Sri Razzak Mohammad (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died on July 26, 1956. Before his death the deceased had executed a deed of transfer in respect of the said property conveying the same to his son, Sri Sultan Mohammad, by a registered instrument dated September 11, 1936. By this deed he transferred the whole of the said prop...
Roshanlal Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All210
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. This second appeal preferred by a police constable challenging the order of his dismissal involves the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Police Regulations, which are frequently employed for the purpose of holding enquiries against constables and awarding punishment to them. 2. The material facts of the case are that the appellant was a constable in the U. P. Police Force and posted at police station Shikarpur in the district of Bulandshahr in April, 1959. He along with some other constables was charged under Section 7 of the Police Act for arresting Budhan Nai on 10-4-1959 causing fracture on his legs and concealing the cause thereof by making a false report in the general diary. The appellant's case was that the charge-sheet against him was baseless but the Superintendent of Police. Bulandshahr, by his order dated 29-6-1959 dismissed him on account of those charges. The order was upheld by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, who dism...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Auraiya Chambers of Commerce
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1970
Reported in: [1973]30STC41(All)
R.S. Pathak, J. 1. The dealer was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1948-49 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, in respect of forward contract transactions by an assessment order dated 5th April, 1950. Before the assessment order he had already deposited a sum of Rs. 3,535-3-0 towards the tax liability, and after the assessment order he deposited, a further sum of Rs. 1,083-3-0 as tax. Shortly, thereafter, the Supreme Court held in Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 459, that the levy of sales tax on forward contracts was ultra vires. On 19th April, 1955, the dealer filed a revision application against the aforesaid assessment order, but the revision application was dismissed on 10th September, 1958, as barred by limitation. On 24th May, 1959, the dealer applied for refund of sales tax paid in respect of forward contract transactions. The refund application was rejected on 19th May, 1960, by the Sales Tax Officer. Thereafter, on 9th July, 196...
Parasnath Thakur Prasad Vs. Hari Narayan Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All404
ORDERG.D. Sahgal, J.1. This application in revision has been filed by one of the defendants to a suit for the specific performance of a contract of sale and also for possession. The applicant and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into a contract of sale of certain agricultural property in favour of opposite-party No. 1. Subsequently, however, they executed a sale-deed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. In the circumstances, opposite-party No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale against the applicant and opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 5. In the plaint as originally filed opposite party No. 1 claimed that he had been put in possession also of the property and only a sale-deed remained to be executed by the applicant and opposite-party No. 2 but they executed in favour of Opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 5, after that contract in favour of opposite-party No. 1. Later on, however, a prayer was added in the alternative to the effect that in case the plaintiff-opposite-p...
H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR714(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. This is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The reference has been made at the instance of Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Singh of Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60, the corresponding period being the 31st March, 1957, and the 31st March, 1958.2. The material facts bearing on this reference are as follows:3. The assessee was previously the ruler of a Native State called theBanaras State. On 5th September, 1949, there was an agreement between the Governor-General of India and the assessee. India at that time enjoyed dominion status under the British Crown. Article I of that agreement, extracts from which have been annexed to the statement of the case as annexure 'A', runs as follows:'The Maharaja of Banaras hereby cedes to the Dominion Government full and exclusive...
Mahabir Prasad Jagdish Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC337(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Mahabir Prasad Jagdish Prasad, Bishesharganj, Varanasi.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of oil. In respect of the assessment year 1959-60, which is the year in dispute, a, regular assessment was made under Rule 41(5) read with Section 7 of the Act. The assessee's account books were accepted and the returned figures of Rs. 28,937 and Rs. 25,112 were accepted as the turnover for the purposes of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act respectively.3. Subsequently the assessment was reopened under Section 21 because the consumption of the electrical energy by the assessee in the manufacture of oil was found to be disproportionately high on the basis of a report by an expert of the State Government. In due course, the Sales Tax Officer made two supplementary assessments, one under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the other under ...
Sahu Dharmata Saran Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR194(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act on the following question :'Whether, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the movable assets have been correctly valued at Rs. 4,70,574 ?'2. The material facts are these : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on money-lending and other businesses. For the relevant assessment year 1959-60, the assessee closed its accounts on Asharh Sudi 9, Samvat 2015, which is the valuation date. The Wealth-tax Officer made an assessment of the net wealth of the assessee as on the aforesaid valuation date estimating the value thereof at Rs. 5,33,067. The Wealth-tax Officer adopted the value of the total assets of the business as disclosed in the balance-sheet, as on the aforesaid valuation date, at Rs. 6,70,617. The Wealth-tax Officer allowed certain deductions and computed the value of the movable assets at Rs. 4,70,574. The amount include...
Chintamani Ghosh Trust Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR331(All)
T.P. Mukerjee, J.1. The present reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, hereafter referred to as the Act, arises out of the assessment of net wealth of the applicant, Chintamani Ghosh Trust, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as ' the trust'. The statement of the case relates to the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60. The corresponding valuation dates are 31st March, 1957,31st March, 1958, and 31st March, 1959, respectively. Four questions of law, to be set ovt presently, have been raised by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court.2. The trust was created by the late Sri Chintamani Ghosh by and under written and registered deed dated July 24, 1924, for making provision for decendants and other relatives of the settlor, for charity, and for due performance of the worship of the family deity, Sri Sri Sridharjee. The property settled on trust consisted of certain shares valued at Rs. 2,19, 765 and also a sum of Rs. 2,80,235, which...
The State of U.P. and anr. Vs. the Bar Council of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971All186
Dwivedi, J.1. The Bar Councils Act 1926, created a class of lawyers entitled to practice in the High Court. The Act designated these lawyers as Advocates. They were to be enrolled by the High Court. The proviso to Section 8(2) ofthe Act provided that it shall be necessary for a person seeking enrolment as advocate to pay in respect of enrolment the stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act.2. Section 3 of the Stamp Act is the charging section. It provides that the instruments mentioned in Schedule I-B of that Act shall be chargeable with the stamp duty of the amount indicated in that schedule. Article 30 of Schedule I-B, in its application to our State, provides for the stamp duty of Rs. 750/- on the 'entry as an Advocate.....on the roll ofany High Court' under the Bar Councils Act, 1926.3. In 1961 Parliament passed the Advocates Act. Section 50 repeals the Bar Councils Act and provides for enrolment of persons entitled to practise in the High Court by a body known as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »