Allahabad Court September 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.
Amresh Chandra Pandey Vs. Firm Kalyan Mal Dharam NaraIn Saraf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All130
K.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal by the unsuccessful defendant arising out of the following facts.:-- 2. The plaintiff respondent is a registered partnership firm doing business at Farrukhabad. The plaintiff was anxious to get the agency of Churk Government Cement Factory, Mirzapur. The defendant was then a sitting M. L. A. from Mirzapur. Somehow or the other, Bhaskar Datt, a partner of the plaintiff firm, got information that Amresh Chandra Pandey, the defendant-appellant, being a sitting M. L. A. would be able to influence the officers of the factory in getting the agency for the plaintiff firm. Bhaskar Datt then approached the defendant-appellant who informed Bhaskar Datt that he had acquaintance with the officers of the Cement Factory, and that he would be able to procure the agency for the plaintiff firm. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant handed over a letter to Bhaskar Datt for Shri T. L. Mahindru. Director of the Factory, to help the plaintiff. This letter did not ach...
Prakash Pottery Industries, Chunar Vs. the District Magistrate, Mirzap ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All97
Pathak, J.1. The petitioner, M/s. Prakash Pottery Industries, obtained a loan from the Uttar Pradesh Government for developing its pottery industry. A deed of agreement dated March 5, 1966, was executed between the petitioner and the State Government. It required the petitioner to apply the loan for purchasing machines for its pottery industry within a period of one year, and provided for repayment of the loan with interest in instalments. Then followed the provisions:'10. If any of the instalments aforesaid shall be in arrears in whole or in part, the whole sum, then remaining due to the creditor under the deed on account of principal and interest shall thereupon become payable at once and the borrower will be liable to pay the same.11. For the consideration aforesaid and in further pursuance of the aforesaid agreement the borrower hereby grant and transfer by way of simple mortgage to the creditor, all that property described in the schedule hereto to the intent that the said propert...
Hukam Chand Mahendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC394(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. In cornpliance with the order of this court under Section 11(4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, has submitted this combined statement of the case for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the following three common questions of law have been referred:(1) Whether the survey report dated 9th May, 1961, was relevant for the assessment years in dispute other than 1961-62 ?(2) Whether the fact that some suppression was detected in the year 1961-62 would in law justify an inference that the assessee must have suppressed sales in other assessment years in question for determining the quantum of turnover for each of those years ?(3) Whether there was any material for rejecting the account books of the assessee for the assessment years other than 1961-62 ?2. The assessee is a dealer in silver ornaments at Agra. The assessee's shop was surveyed on 9th May, 1961, at about 7.15 p.m....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roop NaraIn Ram Chandra (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR13(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no obligation to file an estimate of its income under Section 18A(3) of the Act of 1922 '2. The assessee is a private limited company. During the financial year relevant for the assessment year 1959-60 the assessee did not file an estimate of its income under Section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On assessment proceedings being taken, it was found that the assessee had considerable income. The Income-tax Officer, in the view that the omission of the assessee to file an estimate of its income under Section 18A(3) called for penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause against the levy of a penalty. The assessee contended that the provisions of the Act of 196...
Kasturi Lal Har Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC495(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. Messrs Kasturi Lal Har Lal, petitioners, are a partnership concern carrying on the business of sale of coal.2. The petitioner-firm purchases coal in the State of Bihar and thereafter the goods are booked in the name of the petitioners. In the sales which are the subject-matter of the dispute in the present petition, the firm endorsed the documents of title to the goods while the same were in transit from Bihar to this State. The delivery of the goods was thereafter taken by the endorsees. The petitioners effected sales of the value of Rs. 9,08,548.81 by this method. No tax under the Central Sales Tax Act appears to have been paid by the petitioners in this State, and accordingly, the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, issued notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treating the sales to be inter-State sales having been effected in this State, and imposed a tax of Rs. 18,170.98 on the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition challenging th...
Raj NaraIn Vs. Smt. Indira Gandhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All41
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. The petitioner in this election petition has applied under Order XI Rule 1 and Order XI Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of respondent No. 1 and for a direction to respondent No. 1 to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in her possession or power relating to the questions arising in the petition; but it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the provisions of Order XI Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied to election petitions. The arguments advanced on both sides have ranged over a wide field of both English and Indian law, but I shall endeavour to deal with them as succinctly as possible.2. The first point on which stress has been laid by learned counsel for the contesting respondent is that discovery as envisaged by Order XI, Civil Procedure Code has never been permitted in the trial of election petitions in England. After jurisdiction was conferred by the P...
Adarsh Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur Vs. the State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972All133
ORDERB.N. Lokur, J. 1. The petitioner is an educational institution for teaching and training girls for the High School Examination of the Intermediate Education Board. The scheme of Administration made under Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act relating to the petitioner institution as approved by the Director, provided in paragraph 20 what is described as 'Emergency Provision' as follows:-- (1) When the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to carry on properly the administration of the school/college in the normal manner it may appoint an administrator. Provided that no such Administrator shall be appointed except: (a) on the recommendation of the Committee, or (b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education and after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation. (2) Upon such appointment being made the Committee and all the officebearers shall ...
District Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR639(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business of brick-kilns is not a cottage industry and, hence, income therefrom is not exempt from tax and (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for depreciation on the amount incurred for the purchase of land has been rightly rejected ' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. It has brick-kilns at different places. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee claimed exemption from income-tax in respect of income from brick-kilns under Section 14(3)(i)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It was contended that the manufacture of bricks in the brick-kilns was a ' cottage industry '. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. He referred to the definition of 'cottage industry' cont...
Neel Kamal Talkies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR691(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 7,200 has been rightly considered as capital expenditure '2. The assessee is a partnership firm. It owns a cinema, known as the Neel Kamal Talkies at Bijnore. There is another cinema house at Bijnore known as the Virendra Talkies. It was run by M/s. Prakash Talkies Distributors, Delhi. The assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Prakash Talkies Distributors under which it was agreed that in consideration of the assessee's paying a sum of Rs. 600 per month for a period of 5 years to M/s. Prakash Talkies Distributors, the latter would not exhibit any film at Virendra Talkies.3. In the assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65 (the relevant accounting year being the calendar year ending on the 31st December, 1963) the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,200 pa...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. the Tata Oil Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC520(All)
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. M/s. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. is the sole selling agent for India in respect of the products of M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited, Bombay, which has a factory at Mithapur in Gujarat for the manufacture of washing soap, soda ash, glycerine, toilet goods, etc. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is a branch office of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Bombay. The assessment year involved is 1958-59. There is no dispute with regard to the period from 1st April, 1958, to 30th September, 1958. The dispute relates to the period 1st October, 1958, to 31st March, 1959. The turnover for this period is Rs. 6,75,890.17. There is no dispute about the quantum of turnover. The dispute is as to whether the turnover in question represents inter-State sales and whether the assessee is liable to Central sales tax thereon. The assessee's contention is that it acted as the selling agent of the Mithapur Works, Gujarat, (hereinafter referred to as the manufacturer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »