Allahabad Court May 1971 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.
Pt. Deo Sharma Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR633(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. On 3rd of December, 1968, the Income-tax Officer, Kanpur, issued two notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner, Deo Sharma, stating that he had reasons to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, and requiring the petitioner to file returns for the two years.2. By Writ Petition No. 341 of 1959 the petitioner has challenged the notice issued for the assessment year 1948-49, whereas in Writ Petition No. 1425 of 1969 he has questioned the validity of the notice issued in respect of assessment year 1949-50. As both these petitions are based on identical facts, it will be convenient to deal with them together.3. The facts leading to the two notices which are not in controversy are as follows : With effect from January 1, 1946, a partnership firm, M/s. Sharma & Co., became the sole selling agent of M/s. Cawnpore Cotton ...
Ambika Prasad and ors. Vs. Kamla Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All549
Sahai, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court (O. P. Trivedi, J.) for answer by a Full Bench of five Judges:'Whether Explanation III of Section 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applies only in the case of an order or decree of a competent court commanding or directing correction in records or whether it applies also in the case of an order or decree of a competent court necessitating correction in records as a consequence of the passing of such an order or decree?'2. Reference to a Full Bench of five Judges had to be made because the learned single Judge was of the opinion that there was a conflict in Full Bench decisions of this Court. It is not necessary to mention all the facts giving rise to these second appeals because we are concerned only with the decision of the question referred to us and not with the disposal of the second appeals. These second appeals arise from suits Nos. 992 of 1955 and 993 of 1...
Bharat Nepal Kasth Bhandar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR835(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. These, two writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 3157 of 1970, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of transfer dated 23rd June, 1964, made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow. A prayer for quashing the assessment order dated 15th March, 1965, for the assessment year 1960-61 as also the appellate order, dated 18th March, 1970, has also been made.3. In Writ Petition No. 3158 of 1970 the petitioner has questioned the validity of the transfer order, dated 23rd June, 1964, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, as also of the assessment order dated 14th March, 1966, for the assessment year 1961-62 and the appellate order dated I8th March, 1970.4. The petitioner is a firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of timbers in the city of Bareilly within the usual jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Bareilly. The petitioner filed the returns of its in...
Kali Charan Vs. Ganesh Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All501
K.B. Asthana, J.1. These two appeals can be decided by a common judgment as a common question of law arises.2. The plaintiff respondent admittedly is the landlord, while the respective defendants appellants in the two appeals are tenants in separate portions of a house on separate engagements. What the plaintiff landlord did was that after terminating the respective tenancies of his two tenants in the separate portions of the house, filed one single suit for their eviction pleading a separate cause of action against each based on their separate engagement of tenancy. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit was incompetent as the provisions of Order 1. Rule 3 of the C. P. Code did not permit a single suit against the two defendants who could not be joined in one single suit as defendants, as the right which the plaintiff asserted against each of them was based on different transactions and not on a common transaction. The learned Munsif rejected the plea on the...
Kanpur Sugar Supply Co. Vs. Harsukh Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All502
D.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is an appeal by Kanpur Sugar Supply Company, Kanpur, plaintiff, against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur, allowing its appeal in respect of the special costs and at the same time directing that the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a competent court.2. The plaintiff had placed certain orders with Harsukh Lal and Brothers, Rajkot, as commission agent. Certain disputes arose in connection with these business transactions and the plaintiff instituted a suit at Kanpur, the suit being for accounts and also for the recovery of money.3. The trial court held that the suit was not cognizable by the Kanpur court and was also of the opinion that no amount was due to the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore, dismissed with costs and the plaintiff was further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as special costs. The plaintiff went up in appeal challenging both the orders. The learned Additional District Judge was of the opinion that t...
irfan Ahmad Vs. Nabil Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All15
ORDERGyanendra Kumar, J.1. This is a revision by the defendant against the order of the Civil Judge, Malihabad at Lucknow, allowing amendment of the plaint. The parties ' were partners in a business which stood dissolved. There is, however, difference of opinion between the parties as to how it got terminated. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of specific sums as profits on account of rent and value of furniture and fittings used by the defendant.2. The main defence was that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act. This issue was decided as a preliminary issue and the finding was that the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The plaintiff thereupon sought to recover the amount as mesne profits and prayed that an issue be struck on this plea, but the plaintiff's prayer was rejected. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present application for amendment of the plaint, giving rise to this revision.3. The amendment application (Kha-74) has been plac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajaipat Singhania and Laxmipat Singhani ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1971
Reported in: [1974]97ITR298(All)
Dwivedi, J. 1. These are six, references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the 1961 Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal has referred a common question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be rightly held that no penalty can be levied on the assessee underSection 273(b) of the Act of 1961 for the assessment year under appeal for a default under Section 18A(3) of the Act of 1922 '2. The overall pattern of facts and circumstances in all these cases in this : The assesses were assessed to tax for various years before the assessment year 1960-61. During assessment proceedings it appeared that they were liable to pay advance tax under Section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the 1922 Act '). But they had not paid the advance tax. So proceedings were initiated against them under Section 273(b) of the 1961 Act. The assessees contended that no penalty cou...
Agrawal Engineering Stores and ors. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC446(All)
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. These two petitions proceed on similar facts and raise common questions of law. So we are deciding them by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are dealers under the Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Their business premises were searched, and the searching party seized certain documents. The search and seizure of documents was made in the purported exercise of power under Section 13(3) of the Act. The petitioners challenge the legality of the search and seizure of documents.3. Sri Raja Ram Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners, has raised these points;(i) the search and seizure of documents, having been made by an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, is illegal;(ii) the administrative instructions issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 1st April, 1967, are illegal; and(iii) the information elicited from the seized documents cannot be used as evidence in the assessment proceedings against them.4. We shall examine these arguments serially.5. As regards the firs...
Narendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All1
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The Board of Revenue has referred the following two questions for decision bythis Court;'1. Whether the document is a dissolution of partnership-cum-three mortgages-cum-three releases as contended bythe executants. 2. Whether the document amounts to a dissolution of partnership-cum-three mortgages-cum-three conveyances for Rs. 48,000.00, Rs. 45,000.00 and Rupees 13,000,00 respectively chargeable with the aggregate duties of three conveyances under Article 23 of Schedule 1-B the U.P. Stamp Amendment Act 1958 read with Section 6 thereof.' 2. The document in question is dated 15th September 1960. It states that the four executants carried on business in partnership. The partnership has been dissolved with effect from 15th September 1960. The third party (Narendra Bahadur Singh) was given all the stocks, assets, and liabilities, including, all debts as per books of accounts of the firm. He was entitled to carry on the business under the old name and style. The other t...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. District Judge (Tribunal), Bareilly and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All196
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J. 1. Writ Petitions Nos. 3408 of 1969, 3425 of 1969, 2982 of 1969, 2967 of 1969 and 3343 of 1969 were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question of law. All these five petitions have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and seek to quash the orders made in revisional jurisdiction by the District Judge acting as a Tribunal under the Indian Forest Act. 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1965. (U. P, Act No. XXIII of 1965).2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts relating to these petitions and it is sufficient to mention the following few bald facts for the purpose of these petitions. Some notifications were issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Act declaring that it had been decided to constitute the lands specified therein as reserve forest and, in response to the proclamation under Section 6 of the Act which followed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »