Allahabad Court November 1973 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 Income-tax Vs. Poonam Chand Trilok Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1973
Reported in: [1976]105ITR618(All)
Gulati, J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', has submitted this statement of the case inviting the opinion of this court on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 31,630 as an allowable deduction for the purpose of computation of income, profits and gains of the assessee ?'2. The assessee carried on the business of commission agency. It is a dealer registered under the U.P. Sales-tax Act. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee collected from its customers an aggregate sum of Rs. 43,165 on account of purchase tax leviable on the sale of Rab, In its books of accounts a sum of Rs. 43,165 was credited in an account styled as 'Reserve for purchase tax', instead of debiting it to the profit and loss account. The assessee did so apparently because it was disputing its liability to pay the p...
Sheo Nath and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1973
Reported in: 1975CriLJ463
ORDERK.B. Srivastava, J.1. This revision raises an interesting question of law.2. The opposite party Krishna Kumari had grown Berra crap on a certain plot of hers which was cut and carried away b the petitioners on March 29. 1970, She made a F. I. R., on the same date and followed it up by the institution of complaint in Court on May 1 1970. The trial was held by Sri D. B. Mathur, Judicial Magistrate. First Class, in the summary manner under Chapter XXII. of the Code of Criminal Procedure,, and the petitioners were convicted under Section 379. of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- each. They went up in revision to the Court of Session, and there raised a plea that the offence was not triable summarily inasmuch as the value of the stolen crop exceeded the sum of Rs. 200/- and. therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case summarily and the trial was void under Clause (q) of Section 520. of the Code. The learned .Sessions Judge. however, repell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›