Allahabad Court September 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 Sales Tax Vs. Import Association
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC491(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The question of law raised by this reference is 'whether ammeter and voltmeter are electrical goods within the meaning of Notification No. ST-7096/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965'. The relevant entry in this regard is at serial No. 7 of the above notification. It reads :Electrical goods other than equipment, plants and their accessories required for generation, distribution and transmission of electrical energy.2. The Judge (Revisions) held that ammeters and voltmeters were not worked by electrical energy. Each was a mere apparatus for measuring different aspects of current. They should be unclassified items attracting tax at all points of sale under Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act.3. Ammeters and voltmeters are apparatus utilised for measuring the quantum of current. They cannot be worked unless electrical energy is made to pass through them. It is not the case of either party that they could be worked by any other source of energy. The Judge (Revisions) ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: [1976]38STC10(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The question of law which requires consideration in this case is whether plain and corrugated sheets made of iron come under Section 3-AA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act or is taxable at 3 per cent as hardware. Clause (iv) of Section 3-AA(l) refers to iron and steel and it goes on to categorise the different varieties thereof by using the phrase 'that is to say'. Sub-clause (d) refers to the form in which they are directly produced by the rolling mill. In the present case it seems to have been found that the mill which manufactures the plain and corrugated sheets in question also galvanises them before selling them out.2.In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Durga Hardware Stores [1973] 32 S.T.C. 322. it was held that galvanisation is nothing but coating the iron sheet with zinc by an electrical process or some other processes, to prevent it from oxidation. The galvanisation improves the utility of the raw material of iron. Corrugation is merely wrinkling of the sheets in on...
Bashir Ahmad Vs. Shrimati Rashida Khatoon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All286
Ojha, J.1. Smt. Rashida Khatoon, respondent, filed a composite plaint and an application to sue in forma pauperis on 14th March, 1969. The relief claimed was for cancellation of a sale deed dated 14th March 1967 and for recovery of damages in the alternative. The application for permission to sue in forma Pau-peris was rejected on 28th March 1970. The formal order reiecting the application was signed on 13th April 1970 and on the same date the Civil Judge permitted the plaintiff to make good the deficiency in court-fee bv 30th April 1970 Subsequently, the plaintiff made an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to change the valuation of the suit. This application was allowed and the court-fee payable on the amended plaint was paid on 20th Mav 1970. On payment of court-fee the case was registered as a suit. It was contested bv the defendant appellant inter alia on the ground that after the dismissal of the application to sue in forma Pauperis on 28th March 1970 the Civil Judge...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Tannery Company (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1974
Reported in: [1977]107ITR655(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. Messrs U.P. Tannery Company Private Limited, Kanpur, the assessee, carries on the business of tanning raw hides. For the assessment year 1952-53 the Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 44,741 under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for default of the assessee in furnishing accurate particulars of income in its original return. The penalty was imposed on account of two items, one of Rs. 1,10,088 and the other of Rs. 4,96,868. The finding was that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars of its income in respect of these two items. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the explanation of the assessee for non-inclusion of the items of Rs. 1,10,088 was plausible and believable. He, therefore, deleted the penalty in relation to this item. With regard to the other item, namely, of Rs. 4,96,868 he confirmed the finding of the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had been guilty of deliberately furnishing incorr...
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR759(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. Aggrieved against an assessment order passed under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1968-69 on 27th March, 1972, the petitioner-company filed an appeal on 28th April, 1972. The memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by the notice of demand and on this ground the office of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner returned the memorandum of appeal to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner-company applied for a certified copy of the notice of demand. The same was given to it on 18th October, 1972. The companyfiled the memorandum of appeal again on 19th October, 1972, attaching with it the certified copy of the notice of demand. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 11th May, 1973, passed an order condoning the delay and admitting the appeal. It appears that Sri R. R. Jha, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who passed the order dated 11th May, 1973, was transferred and was succeeded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sri C. D. B...
Ramakant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All126
Mathur, C.J. 1. In view of theconflict in two Division Bench decisions of this Court the following question has been referred to this Full Bench:-- 'Whether after the record has been called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. it is open to him to dismiss the revision on the ground that a necessary party has not been impleaded in the memorandum of revision or he should examine the record and pass such an order which will advance justice after hearing the person who has not been impleaded ?' 2. In Abdul Junaid v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1972 All LJ 435 it was observed:-- 'Section 48 does not confer any right on a party to file an application in revision: It confers a power on the specifiedauthority for the sake of keeping the inferior authorities within bounds. For that purpose he may call for the record of an inferior authority and examine it and Pass an appropriate order. Having regard to the object underlying ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kunj Behari Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: [1977]109ITR154(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. There was a firm of the name and style of Kunj Behari Shyamlal which carried on the business in yarn at Sitapur. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, one of the partners died on 22nd March, 1964. Another partnership deed was drawn up on 23rd March, 1964, by the remaining partners and they carried on the business of the erstwhile firm. At the time of assessment it was claimed that two assessments should be made, one against the erstwhile firm for the period ending 22nd March, 1964, and the other against the assessee-firm for the period 23rd March, 1964, to the end of the relevant previous year, on the ground that on the death of one of the partners the firm had dissolved and the assessee-firm, which had taken over the business of the erstwhile firm was a successor and, as such, Section 188 of the Income-tax Act was applicable. The Income-tax Officer as also the Appellate As...
Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR517(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business at Sitapur in the name and style of M/s. Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory. The firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 28th June, 1969. There were two partners, Yashwantlal and Deep Narain, besides three minors who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership under Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act. Prior to the formation of the firm there existed another firm of the same name and style constituted under a partnership deed dated 21st June, 1966, with two partners, Jethalal, father of Yashwant Lal, and Deep Narain. To the benefits of that partnership also the three minors had been admitted. Jethalal died on June 21, 1969, and the present partnership took over the business of the erstwhile firm. During the assessment year 1970-71, the petitioner claimed that on the death of Jethalal the old firm stood dissolved on 21st June, 1969, and on the following day the new firm took over the business and, ...
Smt. Janki Devi Vs. Mannilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All91
Mathur, C.J.1. This revision arises out of Suit No. 151 of 1965 instituted by Smt. Janki Devi in the Kanpur courts in respect of properties situate not only in Kanpur but also in other districts over which the Civil Judge of Kanpur has no territorial jurisdiction. One of the objections raised to the trial of the suit was about the mis-joinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of the parties. Issue No. 8 framed in this connection is as below:--'Is the suit bad for multifariousness?' The learned Civil Judge recorded a finding that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action and directed the plaintiff to remove the defects within 15 days.2. The material facts of the case are that Ram Swarup and his brother Nanhu Mal carried on business jointly at Rangoon and acquired many properties. Nanhu Mal died in 1922 leaving behind his widow Smt. Kalawati. It is said that after the death of Nanhu Mal, Ram Swarup managed the property with the consent of the widow Smt. Kalawani....
Ram Jag Misir and ors. Vs. the Director of Consolidation, U.P. and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All151
Satish Chandra, J.1. Sheo Harakh died leaving three sons, Ram Run, Ram Jag and Ram Sundar. He left a large property, including many occupancy tenancy plots. One of his sons. Ram Sundar, died in 1939, and was succeeded by his widow Smt. Phulbasi. Differences having arisen between her and the brothers of her husband, she filed a suit for partition, claiming a one-third share in the family properties. She pleaded that her husband, Ram Sundar, was separate from the other brothers, that occupancy tenancy holdings were governed by personal law in matters of succession, and that she, as the heir of her husband, had inherited a one-third share. The other members of the family contested the suit. They pleaded that Ram Sundar had died as a member of the Hindu undivided family and his interest went to his other brothers by survivorship.2. During the pendency of the suit the parties settled their dispute outsida court. Smt. Phulbasi recognised that her husband had died in a state of jointness with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »