Allahabad Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nawab and Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1974
Reported in: [1977]107ITR681(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The assessee returned an income of Rs. 17,648 for the assessment year 1964-65 and an income of Rs. 25,663 for the assessment year 1965-66. The Income-tax Officer rejected the account books of the assessee on the ground that it was not maintaining the daily stock books. He applied a gross profit rate of 15 per cent. and assessed an income of Rs. 53,425. As the income returned by the assessee was less than 80 per cent, of the income assessed, the Income-tax Officer referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for taking action for imposing penalty.2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee was guilty of concealing the particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Ultimately, he proposed a penalty of Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 8,000, respectively.3. Aggrieved, the assessee went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal h...
Mulaim Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1397
K.N. Sath, J.1. The basis questions involved in the applications referred to this Bench are:1. Whether it is open to the Judge who decided an appeal to pass an order under Section 397(1), Code of Criminal Procedure after be has delivered the judgment or he will be debarred from doing so because the order will amount to an alteration of the sentence already imposed?2. Whether it would be competent for the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure to direct that the sentence of a subsequent conviction to imprisonment shall run concurrently with the previous sentence if the stage for exersise of the discretion conferred under Section 397(1) of the Coda is over?3. The circumstances in which the sentence on a subsequent conviction should be made to run concurrently with the previous sentence?2. In Mulaim Singh's case it appears that in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 1966 be was con, victed under Sections 399, 402, 147, 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Cod...
Ganga Charan Vs. Bans Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All25
S.K. Kaul, J.1. Facts giving rise to this appeal may be set out at the outset. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 Bans Bahadur Singh on the grounds that defendant Girja Baksh Singh, who was respondent No. 2 in this appeal, owned Chak No. 30 which included plots Nos. 269 and 318. The aforesaid Chak was known as Ameliya Chak No. 30. On 8-1-1965 defendant Girja Baksh Singh entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the aforesaid plots for a sum of Rs. 3,100 in favour of the plaintiff. Rs. 150 were paid as earnest money and a receipt was duly executed. Thereafter, on further demand by Girja Baksh Singh Rs. 50 was paid by the plaintiff as further earnest money on 15-2-1965. Receipt of the same was also executed by aforesaid Girja Baksh Singh. Plaintiff subsequently on several occasions asked Girja Baksh Singh to execute the sale deed and accept the remaining sale consideration but Girja Baksh Singh went on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, on 24-12-1...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bhag Singh Khandsari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC241(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. The assessee Bhag Singh Khandsari is a manufacturer and dealer in gur and khand. He claimed that, during the assessment year in question (1957-58), he sold all the gur and khand manufactured by him through Messrs. Atma Ram Om Prakash and declared his turnover as Rs. 64,173-9-6. However, his books were not accepted and the Sales Tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under Rule 41(5) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and estimated his turnover as Rs. 70,000. Subsequently, an information was received that, during the year in question, the assessee had sold goods worth Rs. 1,39,607 through Messrs. Atma Ram Om Prakash. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 21 were initiated and the Sales Tax Officer again made a best judgment assessment and estimated the turnover of the assessee that had escaped assessment as Rs. 1,10,000.2. In appeal, it was contended that the information received by the department in this case was that the assessee's total turn...
Smt. Sindhiya Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1403
Hari Swarup, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents Ramji Lal, Ramji La1 and Smt, Shanti Devi. Complaint had been filed by Smt. Sindhiya Devi against her husband Ramji Lal under Section 494, I.P.C. and against the mother of Ramji Lal, Smt. Shanti Devi, and his father, Kunji Lal under Section 404/109, I.P.C. Complaint was also made against three more persons, but as their attendance could not be secured the case proceeded only against respondents Ramji Lal, Kunji Lal and Shanti Devi.2. The case of the prosecution was that Smt. Sindhiya Devi had been married to Ramji Lal and while the marriage was subsisting Ramji Lal married Smt. Shivarari on 20.6.67. Kunji Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi were said to have abetted the second marriage.3. The trial court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the second marriage and thus acquitted all the accused. Against that acquittal this appeal has now been preferred.4. Smt. Sindhiya Devi has es...
Bhawani Prasad Vs. Ram Deo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All87
Jagmohan Lal, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to a zamindari grove which formerly belonged to one Data Din. After his death it was inherited by his two sons Gokul Prasad defendant No. 2, and Ram Prasad. It appears that both these brothers were separated Hindus. Ram Prasad died issueless and his 1/2 share in the grove was inherited by his brother Gokul Prasad. Gokul Prasad had two sons named Bhawani Prasad, who is the plaintiff-appellant before us, and Ram Baran who was impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit but who died subsequently without leaving any widow or issue and whose property was inherited by his father Gokul Prasad. At the time of the abolition of zamindari this grove was held bv Gokul Prasad and his sons. Gokul Prasad held 1/2 share in this grove as his individual property which he had inherited from his brother Ram Prasad, while the other half was held by him as co-parcenary property belonging to the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his two sons. If the...
Shalimar Furnishers Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1974
Reported in: [1975]36STC451(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. Aggrieved against an appellate order the assessee filed a revision. On the date fixed for its hearing the assessee was absent. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, read the appellate order and felt that there was no room for interference. On this ground the revision was dismissed. Thereafter the assessee made an application for the setting aside of the order disposing of the revision. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, held :The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that as there was no service at all on the assessee, ex parte revisional order could not be passed. The particular notice alleged to have been taken by the assessee has been produced and I am surprised how it was interpreted on the basis of the endorsement made that the assessee had been served. The report clearly shows that the proprietor did not receive it. No service by affixation was made. I am thus satisfied that the order passed should not be allowed to sustain.2. The Judge (Revisions), Sales...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Th. Mohan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1974
Reported in: [1976]105ITR746(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 24th August, 1957, the Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as the assessee had failed to comply with certain notice. On September 14, 1957, the assessee filed an application under Section 27 praying for cancellation of the ex parte assessment order. On September 21, 1957, the assessee filed an appeal against the original assessment order. On January 21, 1967, the Income-tax Officer accepted the application under Section 27, set aside the assessment order as a whole and reopened the assessment proceedings. On January 31, 1967, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed an order saying that the income-tax Officer had intimated to him that be had cancelled the original assessment under Section 27. The Commissioner held that the appeal had, therefore, become infructuous and it was dismissed as such. This order was passed without fixing a date for the hearing of the appeal and affording any opportunity of he...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.S. and N.S. Bist
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR710(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. On 24th August, 1957, the Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act as the assessee had failed to comply with a certain notice. On 24th September, 1957, the assessee filed an application under Section 27 praying for cancellation of the ex parte assessment order. On September 25, 1957, the assessee filed an appeal against the original assessment order. On January 21, 1967, the Income-tax Officer accepted the application under Section 27, set aside the assessment order as a whole and reopened the assessment proceedings. On January 31, 1967, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner passed an order saying, that the Income-tax Officer had intimated to him that he had cancelled the original assessment under Section 27. The Commissioner held that the appeal had, therefore, become infructuous and it was dismissed as such. This order was passed without fixing a date for the hearing of the appeal and affording any opportunity of hea...
Hindustan Safety Glass Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC209(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders dated 26th June, 1973, and 13th December, 1973, passed by the Sales Tax Officer assessing the petitioner to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and thereafter refusing to rectify the same.2. The petitioner-company manufactures toughened glasses and mirrors in its factories at Allahabad and Calcutta. It has a branch office at Delhi. In the normal course of business, it effected certain inter-State sales of toughened glasses manufactured by it at Allahabad. The Sales Tax Officer, by his order dated 26th June, 1973, determined the turnover of such inter-State sales for the year 1970-71 and assessed the petitioner to sales tax accordingly. Subsequently, the petitioner, relying upon a notification dated 9th January, 1970, issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, declaring that the turnover in respect of mirrors and toughened glasse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »