Allahabad Court January 1975 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Horilal Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR360(All)
Gulati, J.1. The assessee is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of cloth. For the assessment year 1968-69, it declared an income of Rs. 14,642. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee's accounts were defective. He, accordingly, computed the total income at Rs. 21,650 by assuming a flat rate of profit of 7.5 per cent, to the wholesale and 12.5 per cent, to the retail sales. As the income returned was less than 80 per cent, of the income assessed he initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the minimum imposable penalty exceeded Rs. 1,000, the case was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as required by the proviso to Section 274(2) of the Act. Before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner it was represented on behalf of the assessee that he had not committed any concealment of income and his profit was less because he was a wholesale dealer. It was also ...
Shambho Nath Vs. Radhey Shyam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All214
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant of Shop No. 186/311 situate in Mandi Modhoganj, Allahabad, The first and the second respondents are the owners of the shop and shall hereinafter be referred toas the landlords. The Landlords applied under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for the release of the shop on the ground that a son of one of the landlords, had obtained a degree in M. Sc. Agriculture and wanted to set up a business of oil expeller in the shop in dispute. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority but has been allowed on appeal by the 3rd respondent, the Additional District Judge, Allahabad. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional District Judge has not considered the comparative needs of the petitioner and the landlords and, as such, his order is bad in Law. It has f...
Bansal Steelsons Co. Private Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT262(All)
D.S. Mathur, C.J.1. This judgment shall govern Writ Petitions Nos. 7709 and 7710 of 1973 by Messrs. Bansal Steelsons Company Private Limited and Messers. Prakesh Industries, respectively, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14-11-1973 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise M.O.R. Meerut, respondent No. 4 directing the petitioners to pay excise duty on the finished goods falling under sub-item (ia) of item No. 26AA of the First Schedule to the Excises and Salt Act. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of prohibition, order or direction in the nature of prohibition to direct the respondent, namely, the Union of India, the Collector Central Excise, Kanpur, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Meerut, and the Superintendent, Central Excise, M.O.R. Meerut, not to recover any Excise Duty on the above mentioned goods manufactured by the petitioner.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Both th...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishan Singh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR534(All)
Gulati, J. 1. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of execution of contracts with the M.E.S. For the assessment year 1967-68, he filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 29,016 showing a net profit of 7'5 per cent. on the total receipts. The assessee's books of accounts were found to be defective inasmuch as the expenses were not open to verification. The Income-tax Officer assessed the taxable income at Rs. 54,196 by applying a flat rate of profit of 12'5 per cent. on the total receipts. The Income-tax Officer also initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which provides that the Income-tax Officer may impose penalty if an assessee has concealed the income or has furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. As the minimum penalty imposable was more than Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as required by Section 274(2) of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax levied ...
Sitaram Jwala Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All272
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. These two writ petitions raise a common question of law and can conveniently be disposed of together. The question raised in these writ petitions is in regard to the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Coarse Foodgrains (Levy) Order, 1974. The aforesaid Order was issued by the State Government of U. P. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food), published under G. S. R. 316 (E) dated June 20, 1972, with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. The paragraphs of the said Order relevant for determination of the question raised are paragraphs 3 and 4 which read as hereunder :-- '3. (1) Every licensed dealer shall sell to the State Government at the scheduled price at a purchasing centre :-- (a) Fifty per cent of course foodgrains in stock on the date of commencement of this order or coming into his custody or possession after ...
Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Vs. Ram Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All276
H.N. Seth, J. 1. These two special appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 17th of May 1974 by which he allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 7 Ram Kumar and others, and quashed the notification dated 3-8-1963 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Whereas Special Appeal No. 312 of 1974 is by Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti, the body for whose purposes land had been acquired under the impugned notification, Special Appeal No. 316 of 1974 is by the State Government. 2. On 22nd April 1959 the Collector Fatehpur issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act stating that plot No. 680 situate in village Kuberpur Aima district Fatehpur was needed for a public purpose namely, for construction of a godovvn for storing fooclgrains of Co-operative Marketing Society, Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Bindki (hereinafter referred to as the Society). In due course, the Collecto...
Raj Kumar Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All216
ORDERT.S. Misra, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the opposite parties Nos. 4, 3 and 2, being Annexures Nos. 7, 8 and 9. It appears that when the writ petition was filed Devi Shanker opposite party No. 6 had already died. However, during the pendency of the writ petition Gauri Shanker opposite party No. 8 also expired. The petitioner did not have the legal representatives of the deceased Devi Shanker and Gauri Shanker substituted and the petition abated against the said opposite parties Nos. 6 and 8 vide order of this Court dated 16-11-1972. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite parties that in the circumstances the writ petition being not properly constituted, cannot proceed and has abated as a whole. For the petitioner it was urged that the writ petition would not abate as a whole inasmuch as the consolidation authorities, whose orders were being impugned, ha...
The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow Vs. Shri Hari Prasa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)19
C. S. P. Singh, J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Department of the following two questions of law have been raised :-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- received by the assessee from his father bore the character of a joint family property ?2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the wife of the assessee had invested in the firm Messrs Cottage Industries Emporium out of the Hindu undivided family funds and her share of profit in the firm belonged to the Hindu undivided family and should not be clubbed with the assessees individual income under section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. In the financial year ending 31-3-1966 relevant to the assessment year 1966-67, Hari Prasad Gupta the assessee and his wife Shrimati Uma Devi partners in the firm Messrs Cottage Industries Emporium, Vishwanath Gali, Var...
Ram Nath Gupta and ors. Vs. Second Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All217
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons and petitioner No. 4 is the widow of one Mohan Lal. They are residing in a rented house in Old Katra, Allahabad, on a rent of Rs. 11 per month. The third respondent, Smt Inder Devi is the owner of this house, the has been living with her two sons, Mahesh Prasad and Ganesh Prasad, in a rented house on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. Ganesh Prasad has built a house in Mumfordganj locality at Allahabad. A part of the house is in the occupation of Ganesh Prasad and the rest has been let out to tenants. Inder Devi moved an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)Act (Act No. XIII of 1971) seeking ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that she wanted the house in their possession for her own personal occupation as the house in which she was living was too small for her family consisting of herself, her son, his wife and three children. The petitioners filed objections sta...
Hazari Lal Vs. Gulzarilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1975
Reported in: AIR1975All279
ORDERChandra Prakash, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order dated 28-1-1974 of Shri Incler Paul Singh, District Judge, Budaun holding that the Court-fee paid by the applicant was insufficient.2. The suit giving rise to this application was filed by the plaintiff-applicant against the defendant opposite party on the allegations that the plaintiff-applicant was a tenant of the shop detailed in the plaint and the defendants without any right entered into possession of the same. On these allegations the plaintiff wanted a declaration of title and injunction and in the alternative possession.3. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff and one of the picas taken in defence was that the court-fee, paid was insufficient. The learned trial Court framed a preliminary issue on this point and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Court-fee paid was insufficient. The plaintiff filed a revision against that order in the Court below and that revision ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »