Allahabad Court April 1974 Judgments
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR988(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The assessee is a company which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 in one of its revised returns the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 in each year as deferred cane price under the price-linking formula envisaged by Section 3A of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955. This claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the liability had not accrued and that the assessee, though he was maintaining accounts on the mercantile system, had not made entries in its profit and loss account showing this liability. This view was upheld in appeal. The Tribunal took the same view in second appeal. At the instance of the assessee the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and proper interpretation of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955, and orders made thereunder, the liability fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sardar Wazir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR104(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. Sardar Wazir Singh, the assesses, carried on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style ' Kanpur Arms Corporation, Kanpur '. On 1st of May, 1973, he entered into partnership with his two brothers and one nephew. Wazir Singh transferred his business to the new partnership. In this partnership he had 29% share. The rest of the share was divided between the other persons. A regular partnership deed was drawn up on 6th of March, 1964, effective from 1st of May, 1963. For the assessment year 1964-65, the Gift-tax Officer held that 71% share of the goodwill of the sole proprietary business was gifted by Wazir Singh to his brothers and nephew without consideration and this was taxable under Section 4(a) of the Gift-iax Act. He rejected the claim for exemption under Clause (xiv) of Section 5(1) of the Act. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The assessee then took the dispute to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shyam Lal Dina Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC263(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, this Court by its order dated 11th February, 1972, directed the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax., Varanasi, to state the case and to refer the following question of law for its opinion:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was competent for the Additional Revising Authority, Varanasi, to hear and decide the assessee's revision application against a provisional assessment after the final assessment order has been made 2. The matter concerns the provisional assessment of the assessee, M/s. Shyam Lal Dina Nath, for the first two quarters ending 30th September, 1965, of the assessment year 1965-86. While the assessee claimed to be merely a taula (weighman) the Sales Tax Officer treating it to be a commission agent and by applying best judgment determined its provisional turnover for the two quarters as Rs. 1,00,000. After making the aforesaid provisional assessment, the Sales Tax Officer is...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jalil Vs. Haji Abdul Jalil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All402
Jagmohan Lal, J. 1. The only point that arises for decision in this second appeal is the validity or otherwise of a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, which was served in this case by the plaintiff-respondent on the defendant-appellant.2. In present days of scarcity of accommodation litigation between landlord and tenant has greatly increased. Most of the litigation centres round the question of the validity of the notice by means of which the tenancy is sought to be put an end to by the landlord. Though the general principles governing the validity of such notices have fairly been settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court and Full Bench and Division Bench decisions of this Court, in some individual cases discordant observations have been made by some learned Judges. The reference of this second appeal to this Bench is also the result of some divergent views expressed by two learned Judges of this Court in their decisions while considering the validity of the indiv...
Tag this Judgment!Asa Nand and ors. Vs. Baldev Raj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All139
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. Baldev Raj, who is the applicant in revision No. 545 of 1972 and opposite party No 1 in Civil Revision No. 531 of 1972, filed Civil Suit No. 39 of 1967 for partition, accounting and mesne profits. He alleged that there was a joint Hindu family, of which Nand Lal, his father, was the Karta. Nand Lal died in the year 1948 leaving behind vast properties. The said joint Hindu family was also carrying on business of the sale of books in the name of M/s. Universal Book Co. Nandlal, at the time of his death, left substantial cash and jewellery over and above the family business. It was out of the joint family fund and wealth left by Nandlal as well as out of the joint family business, a number of properties, which were mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint, were purchased. On these facts he asserted that he being a member of the joint family was entitled to receive 1/5th out of the entire properties. He subsequently amended his plaint and enhanced his claim from 1/5th ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed Vs. Mohd. Ishaq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All166
Mathur, C.J.1. The learned Single Judge hearing the Second Appeal was of opinion that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Udhoo Dass v. Prem Prakash : : AIR1964All1 requires reconsideration and, therefore, referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench:--'Whether a person to whom an accommodation governed by the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, has been let out by a landlord in contravention of a general order passed by the Magistrate under Section 7 of that Act, is liable to be proceeded against under Section 7-A at the instance of the person in whose favour an allotment order has been passed by the District Magistrate subsequent to the date on which the accommodation was unauthorisedly let out by the landlord to the former person.'The material facts of the case are that the previous tenant, Jamal Waris, was occupying the disputed shop situate in the city of Lucknow without any allotment order, i.e. an order of the District Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Kranti Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All71
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner Kranti Kumar is the son of late Dr. Harish Chandra, resident of Najibabad, district Bijnor. Dr. Harish Chandra was a medical practitioner in the town of Najibabad. He used to run his clinic in the disputed accommodation. He died on 26th March, 1969, leaving behind the petitioner and his widow Smt. Ram Sakhi as his heirs and legal representatives. At that time the petitioner was in employment at Jabalpur. The accommodation in dispute is owned by the third respondent Smt. Vidyawati hereinafter referred to as the landlord. She applied for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner and his mother under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his detailed order considered the needs of the landlord and of the tenants, namely the petitioner and his mother. It appears that the petitioner's mother had indicated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer her intention to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. R.N. Gupta Vs. Smt. Sarla Khandelwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All376
Mathur, C.J.1. The question is whether a part of a building let out to a tenant and used by him as a garage for keeping his car is an accommodation within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act). The matter was referred to a Full Bench because in the opinion of the learned Single Judge the decision in an unreported case H. K. Dhaon v. State of U. P., Civil Misc Appln. No. 96 of 1955 (O. J.), D/- 2-4-1958 (All.) requires reconsideration. The term 'accommodation' has been defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act as below:--' 'accommodation' means residential and non-residential accommodation in any building or part of a building and includes-- (i) gardens, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of a building;(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building;(iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Khera Shoe Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC220(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, has stated the case and referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court:(1) Whether, under the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the assessee was liable to maintain manufacturing account under Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules and(2) Whether, under the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the disclosed sales of the assessee should have been disbelieved for non-maintenance of proper account under Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules ?2. The assessee, Messrs. Khera Shoe Company, is a manufacturer of and dealer in shoes. It disclosed its gross sales in the disputed year at Rs. 13,63,090.33 which, included both inter-State and intra-State sales. The assessing officer rejected the account books of the assessee, inter alia, on the ground that it did not maintain manufacturing account under Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Ru...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ945
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. This criminal reference has come up before us in the circumstances set out below:On the 14th September, 1969, P.C. Gupta, Principal of a college at Khurja forwarded a report against Amar Singh alleging commission by him of an offence-under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The report was lodged by P.C. Gupta as a result of information furnished to him by M. L. Mittal, Accountant of the college. Consequent on the first information report, a case was registered against Amar Singh at Police Station Khuria and he was taken into custody by the police. On the 19th September, 1969, Amar Singh was produced before the Judicial Officer Khurja and on that date the Officer passed an order under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -- hereinafter referred to as the Code -- remanding him to custody upto the 2nd October. 1969. On the-20th September, 1969, Amar Singh applied for bail under Section 497 of the Code and was ordered to be released on bail. On the 30th Jan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »