Allahabad Court November 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.
Jiwan Das Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All216
ORDERChandra Prakash, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1975 of Sri R.C. Varma, III Additional District Judge Bareilly dismissing the applicant's revision against the judgment and decree of the trial Court.The facts leading to this application in revision are not disputed and may be reproduced as follows:--2. The defendant applicant was the tenant of the plaintiff O. P. in the premises hi suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The plaintiff O. P. applied for permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the U. P. Act III of 1947 in 1959 for filing a suit for ejectment against the defendant applicant. The plaintiff O. P. moved an application dated 11-10-1959 (Ext. 1). The Defendant applicant filed objection against it (Ex. 2). By his order dated 23-12-1960 (Ex. 3) the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the permission sought by the plaintiff for evicting the defendant applicant. The defendant applicant then filed ...
M/S. Bharat Auto Works, Golghar, Gorakhpur Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)15
K. B. Asthana - We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party. We do not think on the judgment and order of the Tribunal of the assessee that the Tribunal has discarded the evidence of the withnesses on affidavit on certain surmises and conjectures as also on a misreading of the record. May be in certain particulars in regard to one or two of the witnesses the Tribunals estimate was inaccurate but substantially, we think, on a reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, that it has considered the evidence fully and we cannot say that its assessment is vitiated on account of ignoring some positive rules of law and procedure. The Tribunal was the final court of fact it was for it to assess the evidence. If on one of the reasons given by the Tribunal there can be doubt about the credibility of the witnesses but other reasons are valid and good reasons this will not be a ground to hold that in rejecting the evidence the Tribunal erred in law. ...
Shambhu Nath Seth Vs. Madan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All220
ORDERTrivedi, J. 1. This revision has been filed by Shambhu Nath Seth in the following circumstances:2. Madan Lal and Barati Lal opposite parties filed a suit against him for ejectment from a certain house. After evidence had been led by the parties and arguments were going to be heard defendant Shambhu Nath Seth moved an application for amendment of the written statement with a view to take a plea that the house in dispute belonged jointly to the plaintiffs and their father and, therefore, the notice served upon the defendant was invalid because father had not joined in it. This application was rejected by the Munsif on the sole ground that it was filedat a very late stage. Shambhu Nath Seth filed a revision before the District Judge, Sitapur. The revision was dismissed by the District Judge with the observation that it was not necessary to amend the pleadings because the defendant had already disputed validity of the notice in the written statement and this additional plea could also...
Bachcha Lal Vs. Lalji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All393
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J. 1. This revision has been filed by Bachcha Lal and arises in the following circumstances.2. It appears that opposite party-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Mun-sif against Bachcha Lal applicant. During the pendency of the suit he applied for temporary injunction which was granted by the Munsif. Thereafter, opposite party moved an application before the Munsif under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code alleging violation of the injunction and stating in the application inter alia that for the alleged breach opposite party had already lodged a report with the police and Bachcha Lalwas already being prosecuted in a criminal court for an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. It was prayed on these facts and allegations that action may be taken by the court against Bachcha Lal under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Against this application Bachcha Lal filed an objection taking the plea amongst others that the bar o...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Standard Chemical Comp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0037A
R. L. Gulati, J. - In respect of the assessment year 1969-70 the assessee claimed development rebate-in respect of the machinery installed in the relevant previous year. The development rebate was allowed. Subsequently the Income-tax Officer took proceedings u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the order passed by him allowing development rebate was erroneous as the assessee was not entitled to the deduction on account of the development rebate, because he had not created a reserve as required by section 34(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has noticed that there are certain decisions which show that if the trading accounts result in a loss, a reserve need not be created and there are other decisions where it has been held that without a reserve, development rebate cannot be allowed. In the opinion of the Tribunal it was a debatale question and could not be said to involve a mistake apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified u/s 154. In our...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Dhoomilal Jagannath, 49/62 ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)38
Gulati, J. - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur.2. The assessee had taken some over-draft from his Bankers. He had tendered some fixed deposit as margin money. The Income-tax Department sought to treat the amount of fixed deposit as assessees income from undisclosed source. The Tribunal has found that it had not been proved that the fixed deposit belonged to the assessee. In doing so, that Tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of the Manager of the Bank and the conduct of the assessee and several other circumstances. The ultimate finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee is not the owner of fixed deposit. This is a pure finding of fact and bases as it is on relevant material, cannot be questioned in a reference.3. The application is accordingly rejected....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Shankar Prasad BankA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0039A
Gulati, J. - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Commissioner of income-tax.2. The learned counsel is permitted to correct the date of service.3. The assessee was a partner in a firm representing his H.U.F. Besides his share in the profits of the firm, he received from the firm salary and interest on his own capital. He filed two returns one in his status of H.U.F. showing the share income and the other in his status of individual showing the income from salary and interest. The Income-tax Officer made a single assessment in the status of an individual clubbing the income in the two returns. The assessee made an application under section 154 requesting the Income-tax Officer to rectify the order so as to exclude the income from salary and interest from the assessment of the H.U.F. This application was rejected on the ground that it was beyond the scope of Section 154. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow-i, Lucknow Vs. M/S. Prem Spinning ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0051A
ORDERR. L. Gulati, J. - The assessee had set up a straw board business on 14th March, 1970 and closed its accounts on 12th April, 1970. The question arise as what was the previous year of this business. The tribunal has found that the previous year of the business was the period from 14th March 1970 to 12th April 1970. This is a pure finding of fact and gives rise to no question of law.2. The second question relates to deduction on account of interest paid by the assessee during the relevant previous year. The assessee had borrowed certain funds from the U.P. Textile Corporation for setting up the business. Although the interest might have related to a period prior to the date of the commencement of the business, but the payment of the interest was made during the relevant previous year. Any interest paid by an assessee on account of interest on capital borrowed for purposes of business is clearly admissible deduction. This question also is not a question of law upon which a reference ...