Allahabad Court November 1973 Judgments
U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer, A-ward and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR129(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The U.P. State Warehousing Corporation has approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the notice of demand dated 22nd May, 1973, issued by the Income-tax Officer, Lucknow, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 30,12,669 as advance tax for the assessment year 1974-75 be quashed and the respondents be directed not to recover any advance tax from the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that in its assessments for the last several years it had been claiming exemption from income-tax in respect of its income from letting its warehouses, but this claim has been consistently rejected by the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the matter is now pending in appeal before the Tribunal. It is hence futile to raise the same objection before the Income-tax Officer who has issued the impugned notice of demand. The petitioner prays that the question of Jaw whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sheo Shanker Sitaram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR523(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union, of India, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, and the Income-tax Officer, Allahabad. It is directed against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by which it rejected the claim of privilege raised by the petitioners under Section 124 of the Evidence Act in regard to the production, of certain documents and files.2. The respondent is the assessee-firm. It carries on business in betel-nuts, etc., at Allahabad. On 21st September, 1964, the income-tax department searched the business and residential premises of the assessee-firm and its partners, and seized certain papers. The respondent's case is that in order to avoid litigation and loss of reputation and with a view to purchase peace with the department the partners of the firm offered to be assessed on agreed quantums on the basis of materials obtained by the department as a result of the search. The partners appro...
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC53(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, this Court required the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi, to state the case and to refer the following question for its opinion :Whether the assessment order for the year 1952-53 was barred by limitation?2. The assessee was a partnership-firm, which in the year 1952-53, dealt in bullion and ornaments. Its assessment for that year was completed by the Sales Tax Officer, Varanasi, on 23rd June, 1962. According to Section 21(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant time, no assessment order under the Act, in respect of a particular year, could be made after the expiry of four years from the end of that year. However, the explanation added to that sub-section provided that in computing the period of limitation provided for making the assessment, the period during which the assessment proceedings relating to the dealer remained stayed under the order of any civil or other competent court had to be excluded....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nav Bharat Automobiles
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR278(All)
Gulati, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has submitted this statement of the case and the following question of law for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, having regard to the scope and operation of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the charge that had been framed upon the assessee for levy of penalty under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was correct ?.'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business at Agra. During the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1964-65, the Income-tax Officer noticed certain cash credits in its account books in the names of certain parties. The Income-tax Officer treated all these credits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources as he was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source and nature of these credits. The Income-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings with a view to levy penalty under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Juggilal Kamlapat, Bankers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR40(All)
Gulati, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat of Kanpur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has submitted this statement of the case with the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the finding that there was no evidence on record suggesting that the assessee was showing its income from lease rent on accrual basis, the sum of Rs. 8,000 was liable to be added to its income as accrued rent or under Section 10(2A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm and at the material time carried on the business of banking and derived income from interest on securities and property, etc. It owned a factory premises known as J. K. Ginning and Pressing Factory, which was leased out to M/s, Naraindass Gopaldass on an annual rent of Rs. 8,000. In the assessment year 1957-58, which is the assessment year in dispute, the assessee did not show in its total inc...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh and anr. Vs. the Returning Officer for Elections and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All188
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. In these two writ petitions validity of U.P. Kshettra Samities (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1973, as published in the Gazette dated 17th February, 1973 has been challenged.2. Babu Singh and Baboo Khan, petitioners in the two writ petitions contested elections for the office of Pramukhs of the Kshettra Samities, during the elections held in March, 1973 for the constitution of Kshettra Samitties under Section 7 of the U.P. Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). Votes were recorded by the members of the Kshettra Samities to the manner laid down In Rule 24 of the U.P. Kshettra Samities (Election of Pramukhs and Up Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1973. Several members obtained help of companions for recording their votes. Both the petitioners lost their elections and their rival candidates were declared elected, thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector, Dehradun and anr. Vs. Daya Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All284
S. Malik, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27-11-1965 of the Civil Judge Dehradun, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The relevant facts are that an area measuring 53.64 acres has been acquired by the State Government to provide land for the construction of a power channel and residential quarters etc., of the Yamuna Hydel Scheme. This area comprises a number of plots including plot No. 1768 measuring 30 acre. The subject-matter of the reference under Section 18 giving rise to this appeal is the said plot No. 1768 measuring .30 acre and the trees standing thereon.3. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on the 19th of November, 1960 and the notification under Section 6 was notified on the 31st of December, 1960. The notice under Section 9 of the Act inviting objections, if any, was notified on the 28th of March, 1961. Thereafter the objector-respondent filed his objections within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra, Nirmesh Kumar Vs. Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC304(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. It appears that the assessment proceedings under the U. P. Sales Tax Act were taken against the petitioner simultaneously for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68. The hearing was adjourned for a number of times and was finally fixed for 28th May, 1969. The petitioner again sought adjournment, but the same was refused and the assessments were completed ex parte fixing the turnover at rupees two lacs for each of the two years. The petitioner moved two applications under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the ex parte assessment orders. These applications were rejected and thereafter the petitioner preferred two appeals against the assessment orders, but they were filed beyond time. The petitioner also filed appeals against the orders rejecting the applications under Section 30. Both these sets of appeals were eventually dismissed. The appeals against the order under Section 30 were dismissed on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kundan Lal Anand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1973
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ344All
A. Banerji, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal, Kundan Lal Anand the respondent was in the service of the appellant in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts, Western Command, Meerut, as a permanent upper division clerk. He joined service of the defendant department in 1948 as a lower division clerk and was promoted at an upper division clerk in December, 1954 and was working in the grade of Rs. 130-5-60-8-200-EB-8-256-EB-280-300. When he was drawing the salary of Rs. 200 per month and was entitled to cross the efficiency bar, the defendant without any valid reason stopped him from crossing the efficiency bar. The plaintiff's case further was that the action of the sanctioning authority in stopping the plaintiff from crossing the efficiency bar was invalid, illegal and discriminatory. He, therefore, filed the present suit after serving a notice under Section 80 C.P.C., for a declaration that he was entitled to cross the efficiency bar with effect from the 23rd July, 1964. He a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Indian National Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC81(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether 'spoon' is included in cutlery and is covered by entry No. 5 of Notification No. ST-3391/X -- 1012/1962 dated 1st July, 1962.2. The aforesaid entry No. 5 reads:Crockery, cutlery, China and porcelain ware.3. These goods are taxable at seven per cent. The Sales Tax Officer held that the spoons manufactured by the assessee were not taxable within the meaning of this entry. He taxed it as an unclassified item at the rate of 3 per cent. This view of the Sales Tax Officer was affirmed in appeal as well as in revision.4. The learned standing counsel urged that the intention of the State Government in making the entry was to include table ware, namely, the goods which are used on the dining table. We are unable to agree.5. The entry includes porcelain ware which are not ordinarily used at the dining table. The entry also includes diverse kind of goods and it is not possible to hold that the word cutlery was intended to cover all those...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »