Allahabad Court September 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 Sales Tax Vs. Nand Kishore Gauri Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC117(All)
Hari Swarup, J.1. Similar questions have been referred in these three references under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question of law referred to us for opinion is in the following terms:Whether, under the circumstances of the case, the purchases made by the assessee with respect to the goods not notified under Section 3-D(l) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act can be added in the purchases of the goods notified under Section 3-D(1) for the purpose of determining whether the assessee's turnover during the year was above the taxable limit of Rs. 12,000, as provided under Section 3-D(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act2. The assessee is a dealer within the meaning of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. He made purchases during the relevant years of goods which were liable to tax under Section 3-D(1) of the Act as well as of goods which were not taxable under that section. The turnover of purchases of taxable goods was less than Rs. 12,000, but if ag...
Dinai Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ247
ORDERS.K. Kaul, J.1. Crl. Appeal No. 245 of 1971 has been filed by Dinai and Crl. Appeal No. 352 of 1972 has been filed by Dukhi. Both these criminal appeals arise out of a judgment in a dacoity case, Sessions Trial No. 122 of 1969 decided by Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Rae-Bareli, in which both these appellants were jointly tried. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, these shall be disposed of together.2. Briefly stated. prosecution story is that a dacoity took place on the night between 26/27-9-1968 at about midnight at the house of one Chhedi Lal situate in village Sonbarsa, P. S. Salon, District Rae Bareli. Several armed dacoits were said to have committed this dacoity and decamped with the looted property belonging to Chhedi Lal. Chhedi Lal lodged F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 next morning at 8.20 a. m. at the aforesaid police station which lay at a distance of about 4 miles from the village in question. Before I take up the question of identification in respect of ...
State of U.P. Vs. Purendra Prakash Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ131
ORDEROnkar Singh, J.1. These are two applications under Section 498(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail of opposite party granted by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow.2. The opposite party is being prosecuted in two cases, one under Sections 147/143/336/426, Indian Penal Code. Rules 43/119 of Defence of India Rules, 1971 and Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and the other under Sections 147/436/395, Indian Penal Code and Rules 43/119, Defence of India Rules, 1971 of Police Station Hasanganj. District Lucknow. He surrendered before the City Magistrate, Lucknow on 19-7-1973 and applied for bail which was rejected. On 19-7-1973 the learned Sessions Judge granted parole to the opposite party for a period of one month in one case and in the other he was directed to be released on bail by the order of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 21-7-1973, The opposite party was, however, arrested after the examination was over on 20-7-1973 in connection with c...
Sibte Hasan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All86
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. This is a petition by the tenant in proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act No. III of 1947) -- hereinafter referred to as the Old Act. Opposite party No. 3 Abdul Ghafoor is the landlord of the premises in dispute and the petitioner happened to be tenant thereof. Opposite Party No. 3 filed an application under Section 3 of the Old Act for permission tofile a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises demised to him in which he was carrying on business in medicines in the Unani Form. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the landlord on the ground that his need was not genuine and bona fide. He filed a revision against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 3 (2) of the Old Act. While the revision was pending before the Commissioner, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972 -- hereinafter referred to as the Act...
Kanti Saran Vs. L. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All302
Satish Chandra, J.1. The appellant filed an objection under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act against an arbitration award. The trial Court rejected the objection. On appeal the same was allowed and the award was set aside. The respondents filed a revision in this Court. The order of the lower appellate Court was challenged on the ground that its finding on the question of misconduct by the arbitrator was without jurisdiction. A learned single Judge dismissed the revision on 18th May, 1960, on the finding that no question of jurisdiction arose so as to attract the provisions of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. On this view the revision was dismissed with costs. Thereafter the respondent Babu Ram filed a writ petition in this Court to challenge the validity of the same order of the lower appellate Court. A learned single Judge went into the merits of the case and found that there was manifest error of law and so quashed the appellate order of the Civil Judge.2. It has been argued on b...
Hasan Ahmad Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR414(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that the order dated February 17, 1973, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, rejecting his prayer for waiving the penalty for late submission of wealth-tax return be quashed. 2. The petitioner filed his wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, beyond the time prescribed in Section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, but before any notice under Section 14(2) of the Act could be issued to him. In those returns the petitioner stated the estimated value of his immovable properties and computed his net wealth accordingly. However, at the time of assessment, in respect of each year, the Wealth-tax Officer determined the total value of the petitioner's immovable property at a higher amount, and, consequently, his net wealth in each year also was computed and taxed at a higher figure. While completing these assessments, the Wealth-tax Officer further directed that notices ...
M.M. Sales and Exports (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All263
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The principal question raised by this writ petition was whether the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, No. 38 of 1944 was in force on 27th July, 1973 when the District Judge, Kanpur passed an ex parte order attaching the petitioners'. Bank account under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance. A Bench of this Court while admitting the writ petition directed that since the involved question was of general importance it may be heard and decided by a Division Bench. That is how this writ petition has been listed for hearing before this Bench.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 ceased to have force or effect after 15th August 1947 because of the operation of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947 as well as the India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947. In order to appreciate these submissions we have to notice certain provisions.3. Part II of the Government of India Act, 1935 envisaged t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Late Sunderlal (Through Bankey Behari L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR310(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following questions : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner having authorised an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1960-61 was justified in passing an order under Section 33B relying solely on the very order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the purposes of holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue 2. Whether Section 33B proceedings can be taken against the legal heirs of a deceased assessee, and if so, whether the proceedings taken in this case by issue of a notice on an heir who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family are valid 3. Whether the legality of an assessment which had become final could be challenged in the proceedings taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33B of the Indian Income-t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›