Allahabad Court February 1972 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Padampat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR418(All)
Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. It is a consolidated reference relating to several assessment years, viz., 1957-58 to 1963-64. The following common question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are applicable for determination of the assessee's interest in the wealth of the firm styled as M/s. J. K. Bankers for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1963-64 '2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It holds through its karta l/3rd share in a partnership firm of the name and style of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers (hereinafter referred to as ' the firm'). While computing the net wealth of the assessee for each of the seven years, the Wealth-tax Officer had to take into consideration the assessee's share in the wealth of the firm. While computing that share the Wealth-tax Officer took the net wealth of the fi...
The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. the Hindustan Lever Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All486
Satish Chandra, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit for recovery of money.2. Hindustan Lever Limited, the plaintiff-respondent, is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of, inter alia, vegetable oil products. It had to pay large amount of excise duty on these products to the Excise Department of the Union of India. In January, 1953, the plaintiff-company obtained sanction of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Meerut, to open an account with the Sub-treasury maintained by the State Government of U. P. at Ghaziabad in order to pay excise duty to the credit of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. Theplaintiff-company maintained a current account with the Punjab National Bank, defendant No. 1. On 14th July, 1955, the plaintiff instructed the defendant bank to deposit on behalf of the plaintiff and to the debit of the plaintiff's current account with, the bank, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the sub-treasury, Ghaziabad, to th...
Jupiter Battery Works Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC80(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act.2. The assessee is a dealer in batteries used in motor vechicles. For the assessment year 1962-63 a dispute arose between the assessee and the sales tax department with regard to the rate of tax applicable to the turnover of batteries. The assessee's contention was that the rate should be six pies per rupee as prescribed under Notification No. ST-3505/X dated 10th May, 1956. The revising authority held that the proper rate was seven per cent, as prescribed under Notification No. ST-3391/X-1012- 1962 dated 1st July, 1962.3. At the instance of the assessee the following question of law has been submitted for the opinion of this court :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Revising Authority, Sale's Tax, Varanasi Range, Varanasi, was justified in holding that batteries as manufactured by the applicant would fall in the definition of 'electrical goods' as per Notifi...
Kunj Behari Lal Gupta Vs. Shri Shivji Maharaj, Birajman Mandir and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All217
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J.1. Kunj Behari Lal has filed this appeal from a concurrent decree of his eviction from an accommodation, which comprised a building and open land, of which the plaintiff-respondent, Shivjee Maharaj Virajman Mandir is the landlord.2. The facts necessary for understanding the controversy involved in this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:--The building and the open land appurtenant to it, enclosed in a compound, originally were the property of Chhitarmal, who endowed the same to Shivjee Maharaj. By a deed of lease dated 30-10-1937 the said properties were demised for a period of 20 years on an annual rent of Rs. 108/- to Lala Ratan Lal for the purpose of doing business by installing machinery on the land and raising constructions with the condition that the already existing constructions or the building were to be used by him and on the expiry of the term of the lease the vacant land and the existing building as such would be restored to the possession of the l...
Sitaram Sharan and anr. Vs. Johri Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All317
G.C. Mathur, J.1. These are two second appeals arising out of two suits filed by the appellants against the respondents for their eviction from two shops numbered 278 and 279.2. The appellants are owners of a row of shops numbered 277. 278. 279, 280 and 281 which are single storeyed. The respondents are tenants of shops Nos. 278 and 279. Apparently, the tenancies were created at different times. The appellants filed the two suits out of which these two appeals arise for the eviction of the respondents from these two shops, inter alia on the ground that the respondents had made certain constructions over all the five shops without the consent of the appellants and had thereby materially altered the accommodation. In the plaint, the appellants alleged that the roofs of the two shops were not included in the tenancy of the respondents. The respondents admitted having made the constructions but pleaded that they had done so with the consent of the appellants. They further pleaded that the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Doon Builders
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR234(All)
Pathak, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, 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 law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had no power to cancel the registration and renewal of registration of the assessee under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, when the same had been granted with regard to the aforesaid assessment years under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The assessee, a partnership firm, filed returns of its income for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 before April 1, 1962, and was assessed under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for those assessments years. It also applied for registration under Section 26A of that Act for the assessment year 1958-59 and registration was granted o...
Shambhu Ratan Shailendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC374(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. In compliance with the order of this court dated 17th March, 1970, under Section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Lucknow, has submitted this statement of the case on the following two questions of law :(1) Whether there was any material for rejecting the account books of the assessee ?(2) Whether the method employed in determining the quantum of turnover was legally permissible ?2. The assessee carries on business in chemicals. The assessment year involved is 1962-63. The assessee filed its turnover for that year and declared a gross turnover at Rs. 1,19,170.60. The account books produced by the assessee were rejected by the assessing authority which made a best judgment assessment determining the net turnover at Rs. 2,40,000. The assessee objected to the rejection of the accounts as also to the quantum of the turnover assessed. The appellate authority reduced the net turnover to Rs. 2,25,000, but did not accept the assessee's conten...
Standard Chemical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1972
Reported in: [1977]110ITR832(All)
R. L. GULATI J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution.The petitioner, which is a private limited company, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1966-67. In computing the total income the assessee was granted development rebate in respect of some machinery which had been installed by it in the calendar year 1964. The assessee had also claimed depreciation on certain assets including land. Later on, the Supreme Court in a case, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alps Theatre : [1967]65ITR377(SC) held that depreciation was allowable only on the value of buildings and not on the value of land. The Income-tax Officer, accordingly, realised that depreciation on land had wrongly been allowed to the assessee and to that extent a part of the assessees income had escaped assessment. He, accordingly, issued a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act on November 15, 1968, and passed a supplementary assessment order on October 16, 1969, withdrawing the depreciatio...
Ch. Syed Iqbal HusaIn Vs. Rameshwar Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All350
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. This is an execution second appeal filed by Syed Iqbal Husain.2. The predecessor of the decree-holder-respondents had advanced some money to Ch. Afzal Husain. After his death, a suit for recovery of the amount was filed against the heirs of Ch. Afzal Husain including Syed Iqbal Husain. The suit was decreed. In execution, of that decree, certain Bhumidhari plots were put to sale and were auctioned. Iqbal Husain had filed an objection against the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. which was rejected. He then filed the objection that the property sold belonged to him personally and was not the asset of Ch. Afzal Husain and, as such, was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree. It should be noted here that the decree passed was against the asset of Ch. Afzal Husain in the hands of this judgment-debtor.3. The objection of the Judgment-debtor was dismissed by the executing court. Being dissatisfied, the judgment-debtor filed an appeal. The appeal was also dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›