Allahabad Court February 1974 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.
Sharda Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR373(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 with the following question of law for our opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the case would not come within the ambit of the provisions of Section 154 of the Act of 1961, with regard to granting of rebate under Section 84 of the Act to the partners of M/s. Kanpur Cold Storage, where relief had been allowed under Section 84 to it. ' 2. The assessee was a partner in a firm of the name and style of M/s. Kanpur Cold Storage. By an order dated 27th February, 1965, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment of the firm and allowed rebate to it under Section 84 of the Act. The assessment of the assessee was completed on 29th March, 1968. The Income-tax Officer did not allow rebate under Section 84 of the Act in respect of the assessee's share in the firm. ...
Dhani Ram Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1234
ORDERYashoda Nandan, J.1. This is a revision by the husband in proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).2. The material facts giving rise to this revision are that on the basis of an application filed by opposite party Srimati Parbati, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh passed an ex parte order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to her. This order the learned Magistrate apparently passed under the proviso to Section 488 (6) of the Code. On the 26th of March, 1970, an application was made by the applicant before the learned Magistrate praying that the ex parte order dated 16th October, 1969, be set aside, the case restored to its original number and decided after giving the applicant an opportunity of contesting the claim put for-fard by opposite party No. 2. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate for default of appearance of the applicant on 8th Jun...
North-Eastern Railway Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. Registrar of Trade ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ396All
K.N. Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Registrar. Trade Unions. Kanpur, dated 24-9-1973 registering changes in the office-bearers of the North-Eastern Railway Employees' Union, and the order of the General Manager. North-Eastern Railway, dated 28-9-1973 granting recognition to the office-bearers as registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions.2. The North-Eastern Railway Employees' Union, petitioner No. 1 is the union of the employees of the North-Eastern Railway, having its headquarters at Gorakhpur. The union is registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, with the Registrar of Trade Unions at Kanpur, O.P. Tripathi, petitioner No. 2 claims to be the General Secretary of the union. There have been two rival groups claiming themselves to be the office-bearers of the petitioner-union, one group claimed to have been elected at the meeting of the general body of the union at ...
Udai Bhan Singh and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All202
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. A Bench Consisting of Satish Chandra and N. D. Ojha, JJ., has referred to this Full Bench the following question for its answer:'What is the impact of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on writ petitions or special appeals arising out of them in which judgment or orders passed in suits or proceedings relating to declaration of rights in land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act are impugned?'There was a divergence of opinion between the two learned Judges on the above question. While Satish Chandra, J., took the view that the suit or proceeding giving rise to a writ petition is pending in this court and abates by virtue of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act hereinafter referred to as the Act -- on a notification under Section 4 thereof being Issued, N. D. Ojha, J., was of a contrary opinion.2. Before embarking on a consideration of the impact of Section 5 (2) (a) of ...
Bajrang Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: [1977]108ITR245(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. A Hindu undivided family consisted of Bajrang Lal, his wife, four sons, one daughter and mother. This Hindu undivided family owned various assets. On the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1959-60, there was a partial partition in this family. The business assets of the firm, Phool Chand Bajrang Lal, were partitioned. The assets of this firm were divided equally between Bajrang Lal, his four sons and his wife. The firm was converted into a partnership firm in which the wife did not join as a partner. Thereafter the only partners were Bajrang Lal and his two major sons, the two minor sons were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. With regard to the rest of the assets, the original Hindu undivided family continued. 2. In his individual assessment, Bajrang Lal claimed that the share which he received on partition was liable to be assessed in his hands in the status of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his widowed mothe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Baran Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR691(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. For the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 2,689. The Income-tax Officer, however, completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 30,000 by an order dated 28th February, 1964. He also initiated penalty proceedings. Since he was of the opinion that the penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000, he referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner heard the assessee, and on 4th November, 1965, passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,000. He observed that the maximum penalty imposable in this case worked out to Rs. 3,630 and so the imposition of Rs. 3,000 as penalty was reasonable. The assessee took this order in appeal to the Tribunal.2. Before the Tribunal it was argued that on the finding that the maximum penalty imposable was Rs. 3,630 which, in other words, meant that this amount was one and a half times of the amount of tax which would have been avoided if the income as returned by ...
Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR20(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. Messrs. Prem Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., the assessee, is a limited company which runs a spinning and weaving mill at Ujhani. The previous year relevant for the assessment year 1966-67 ended on 12th April, 1966. It appears that the assessee wanted to set up a straw-board manufacturing factory. To that end it secured a loan of Rs. 7,50,000 from the U. P. Financial Corporation. The assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 38,450 on account of this loan. This amount included Rs. 11,621 paid to the Corporation as interest, Rs. 1,850 on account of commitment levy, Rs. 16,852 on account of cost of stamp, Rs. 7,561 on account of registration charges and Rs. 564 on account of legal charges. The question was whether the expenditure of Rs. 38,450 was deductible under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim. He held that this was an expenditure incurr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›