Allahabad Court April 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.
Mohd. Hanif Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC447(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a demand notice dated 27th June, 1973, issued by the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Moradabad, requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,787.52 as purchase tax on purchase of sugarcane daring the year 1972-73, along with interest, as required by the U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner, Mohd. Hanif, holds a licence under the provisions of the U. P. Khandsari Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967. He claims that as required by Rule 14 of the Sugarcane Purchase Tax Rules, 1961, he submitted returns every month showing the quantity of sugarcane purchased by him during the preceding month, and paid the purchase tax thereon. According to him, he has paid the entire amount of tax due for the year 1972-73 and no amount on that account was outstanding against him. The assessing officer, without complying with the provisions of the Rules, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of...
Pratap Chandra and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR551(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. A well-known family of Allahabad, popularly known as the Jhusi or Naini family, was assessed to income-tax in the status of a Hindu undivided family in the firm name of Kishorilal Makundilal. 2. In 1926 Pratap Chandra, one of the members of the family, instituted a suit for partition in the court of the civil judge, Allahabad. In due course a preliminary decree was passed in 1931 partitioning the family into five branches, which were commonly known as the 'plaintiff's branch', ' Calcutta branch ', ' Naini branch ', ' Banaras branch ' and ' Baijnath Prasad's branch '.3. The civil judge, Allahabad, passed a final decree for partition on 13th January, 1939. The family properties and assets were divided into five lots. Soon after the civil judge appointed Sri Kamta Prasad Kakkar and Sri D. N. Kapur as joint receivers for the entire Hindu undivided family estate. The receivers were, however, required to keep accounts of the income of the five branches separately. The re...
Bhola Nath Kesari Vs. Director of State Lotteries and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1974
Reported in: [1974]95ITR171(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This and the connected petitions raise a common question and hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioner won a prize of Rs. 1,00,000 in the twentieth draw of the U.P. State Lotteries held on 8th December, 1972. Under the rules one-tenth of the prize money goes to the person who sells the ticket. The petitioner was thus entitled to Rs. 90,000. Out of this sum, a sum of Rs. 31,050 was deducted on account of income-tax and the petitioner was paid the balance of Rs. 58,950. A certificate of deduction of income-tax was duly sent to the petitioner by the Director-of State Lotteries, the second respondent. The petitioner has challenged the deduction of income-tax and has impleaded as respondents besides the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Director of State Lotteries, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, the Union of India and the Income-tax Officer, Lucknow.3. Prior to 1972 winnings from lotteries used to be exempt from Income-tax as being receipts of casu...
Subhash Oil Industries and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All19
ORDERGopi Nath, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise common questions and can be disposed of by a common judgment. They challenge an increase in the rate of electric energy supplied by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners. Petitioners include associations and individual consumers. The enhancement in rates of electric energy charges has been made under a notification of the State Government dated 24th May, 1972 issued under Section 3 (2) (aa) of the U. P. Act No. 6 of 1947 published on 3rd June, 1972, and by a notice of respondent No. 2 dated 9. June 1972 published in the 'Amar Ujala' dated 11th June, 1972. Notification dated 24th May, 1972 is Annexure A-2 to the petition. The notification is sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari but no prayer has been made for the quashing of the notice published in the 'Amar Ujala' dated 11th June, 1972.2. Respondent No. 2 is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act 1910 for the supply of electric energy within the...
Kailash Nath Kashi Nath Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC359(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the two assessment orders for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 made on 10th January, 1973. The petitioner's assessment for the year 1969-70 was reopened under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and by order dated 10th January, 1973, it was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 35,00,000. Its assessment for the year 1970-71 was also completed on 10th January, 1973, under Rule 41(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, on a turnover of Rs. 41,00,000. The petitioner impugnes the validity of the two assessment orders, inter alia, on the following grounds:(1) The Sales Tax Officer had no reason to believe that any part of the petitioner's turnover had escaped assessment. He had therefore no jurisdiction to reopen its assessment for the year 1969-70 under Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act.(2) The Sales Tax Officer erred in making best judgment assessment for both the years, after rejecting the account books of the petitioner, ...
Shamim Ahmad Alvi Vs. Azizul Rahman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All354
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Moradabad, dated 11th March, 1972.2. The facts leading up to this appeal are as follows:--Shamim Ahmad Alvi, the appellant occupied the disputed accommodation on 12th April, 1964, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. The landlord, Azizul Rahman Khan, the respondent, sought to evict the tenant. He, therefore, sent a registered notice demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the contract of tenancy on 26th February, 1969. The registered notice was returned by the postal department with the endorsement of refusal. The landlord treating the refusal as service filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also the damages for use and occupation, pendente lite and future and for the eviction of the tenant. He alleged that the disputed accommodation was post 1951 construction and, therefore, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to a...
Smt. Sukhdei and ors. Vs. Naipal Ram Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All408
Mehrotra, J. 1. This is the defendants' second appeal. The trial court substantially decreed the suit and the lower appellate court has affirmed the said decree. The defendants have felt aggrieved and have filed the instant second appeal in this Court.2. I am reproducing the following portion of the judgment of the lower appellate court with a view to state the facts of the case :'The plaintiff M/s. Naipal Ram Jagannath Prasad filed this suit on 17-3-71 for recovery of Rs. 5373.40 P. plus Rs. 1934.28 P. interest, i.e. a total of Rs. 7307.68 P. The plaint allegations are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of brass vessels in Thatheri Bazar, Varanasi City, for the last many years. Late Madho Kumhar alias Mahadeo Kumhar used to take brass-sheets, popularly known as 'Chan-da', from the plaintiff firm for preparing vessels on usual labour charges. Mahadeo Kumhar had a running account in the Karigar Bahi or the Malkh...
George ElwIn King Vs. the Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Cont ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All452
Satish Chandra, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the order passed by the Reserve Bank of India on 6th December,1971, be quashed and the State Bank of India, Allahabad, be directed to pay the amounts and securities in question to the petitioner.2. Mr. George Justin O'Brian, a British national resident in India, made a will on 26th December, 1926, of his properties in India. Under this will his properties were made the subject of a trust with directions for its appropriation by the executors and trustees. The income from the funds end the properties were to go to the two sisters of the testator for their life, and thereafter to his brother and after his death to his brother's wife. It was arranged in this document that after the death of the aforesaid four persons the property will be divided between the children of his brothers, William and Henry, in stated proportions. One of the daughters of William, Miss Elfeeda O'Brian, later on married and became...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Hotel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: [1980]123ITR828(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the CIT, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has stated the case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court I' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the levy of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1966-67 '2. The assessee, M/s. India Hotel, Nainital, was assessed to income-tax on 16th August, 1966. The ITO formed an opinion that as the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income and had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, minimum amount of penalty imposable upon it was Rs. 1,000. Accordingly, as required by Section 274(2) of the I.T. Act, he referred the case to the IAC for imposing such penalty as he thought proper. It appears that while the penalty proceedings were pending before the IAC, the assessee filed an appeal aga...
Bhagwat Prasad and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR111(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the assessee and under the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has stated the case and referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating the sum of Rs. 5,408 and Rs. 1,071 as income of the assessee earned in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64 '2. The assessee, Messrs. Bhagwat Prasad and Co., is a registered firm carrying on business of dealing in cloth on wholesale basis at Kanpur. The Income-tax Officer found the following two amounts in the balance-sheet of the assessee for the relevant accounting year ending on Asarh Badi 2, Sambat 2019, i.e., sometime in June/July, 1962 :Rs.Reserve khata5,408Reserve byajkhata1,071Total6,4793. Investigation into the account books of the assessee revealed that a sum of Rs. 5,400 was received by it in the year 1951-52 from two of its customers as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »