Allahabad Court July 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.
Om Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC553(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. The question referred to us for opinion in this case is:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 'hand-pump' was covered by Notification No. ST-7098/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 19652. In other words, the short question is whether 'hand-pump' is 'machinery' within the meaning of the aforesaid notification. This court has, in a large number of cases, held that mechanical contrivance where energy is transmitted from one point to another is machinery. In Basant Industries, Agra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1975 U.P.T.C. 88. 'water-pump' was held to fall in the category of 'machinery'. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Ramesh Pd. Batuk Pd., Varanasi 1974 U.P.T.C. 535 sewai-ki-machine has been held to be 'machine'. Similarly, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Chandok Traders 1973 U.P.T.C. 484 'hair clipper' was held to be a machine. In view of these decisions it is clear that 'hand-pump' which is used for lifting water falls in the category...
Hari Cold Storage and Gen. Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of U ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All72
H.N. Seth, J. 1. In these connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, common questions of law arising in identical circumstances, are involved. Accordingly, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.Petitioners in all these cases are owners of cold storages located in the State of U. P. They carry on the business of providing cold storage facility to those who agree to pay charges for hiring space for storage of potato.2. On 16th of March 1972, the State of U. P. purporting to exercise its powers under rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules 1971. promulgated an Order entitled U. P. Cold Storage Order 1972. This order sought to regulate the running of cold storage business by issue of licences and by obliging the cold storage owners not to levy hire chargesfor storage of agricultural produce at a rate higher than that specified in the second schedule of the Order (storage charges specified for storing potato were not to exceed Rs. 8/- per quintal for ...
Sita Ram Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All70
Chandra Prakash, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 8-9-1965 of Sri S. K. Rai, Civil Judge, Allahabad, allowing the defendant's appeal in part and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 31/- as arrears of rent and possession.2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for the recovery of Rs. 59/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 9/- as damages for use and occupation and ejectment in respect of a house detailed in the plaint on the allegations that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in the house in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- and Rs. 930/-were due from the defendant to the plaintiff for arrears of rent for the period between 1-1-1959 and 31-3-1964 after crediting the amount of Rs. 111/- sent by the defendant by money order and Rs. 54/-paid by the defendant towards House Tax and Water Tax. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by a notice dated 7-5-1964. Hence the su...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surajpal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: [1977]108ITR746(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This reference under the Income-tax Act raises some important and difficult questions of law. But, unfortunately, the assessee is not represented. We have, therefore, requested Sri Raja Ram Agarwal to assist us as amicus curiae.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year involved is 1961-62. The assessee filed its return on 19th August, 1961. A year later on 1st August, 1962, he filed a revised return including therein income from property which had not been included in the original return. However, no action was taken by the Income-tax Officer either on the original return or on the revised return. It may be mentioned here that the assessee was an old assessee and was being assessed to income-tax for the past several years. His case fell within the jurisdiction of District III(1), Kanpur. Meanwhile on the basis of a survey report, the Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Kanpur, issued a notice to the assessee under Section 22(2) of the In...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Tannery Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR842(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business of tanning raw hides at Kanpur. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 18A(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to pay in instalments advance tax amounting to Rs. 3,79,934 relevant for the assessment year 1952-53. The assessee paid the first instalment on 16th September, 1951. On 15th December, 1951, it filed an estimate disclosing its total income at Rs. 7 lakhs, at which tax payable worked out to Rs. 2,76,790. When the assessment for the year in question, namely, 1952-53, came to be made, the Income-tax Officer worked out a total income of Rs. 12,66,455 as against the estimated income of Rs. 7 lakhs submitted by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer being of the opinion that the assessee had furnished the estimate of the tax payable by it which it knew or had reason to belie...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.K. Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: [1977]110ITR902(All)
R.L. Gulati, J.1. This reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, raises an interesting question of law. The question in short is whether the tax levied upon a person under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965, is a legitimate deduction in the computation of his net wealth upon which tax is to be levied.2. The assessee was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic medicines at Datia and had other sources of income also. On 28th May, 1965, he made a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income of Rs. 5 lakhs. This disclosure was made under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965. The disclosure was accepted and the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as income-tax on the disclosed income of Rs. 5 lakhs. It was the assessee's case that he had earned this income during a number of years in the past. In the wealth-tax returns for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, he included in his net wealth a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 in the first year and a sum of Rs. 2,80,000 in th...
U.S. Awasthi and anr. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR796(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. This and the connected writ petition arise out of a common set of facts and involve a common question of law and they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner No. 1, Sri U. S. Awasthi, is a practising advocate at Allahabad and petitioner No. 2 is his wife. They, along with some other persons, purchased bungalow No. 15, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Allahabad, together with the vacant land. The petitioners purchased vacant land measuring about 6,000 sq. yards for a sum of Rs. 37,150.40, the price being Rs. 6.20 per sq. yard. The vendors are Sri M. L. Dave, an Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, and Srimati Sudha Dave, widow of late Sri C. M. Dave. The sale deed was executed and registered on 29th December, 1973. On 19th August, 1974, a notice under Section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued to the petitioners by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acqu...
Lakshmi Brahman and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ118
H.N. Seth, J.1. This is an application under Section 439, Criminal P.C. by Lakshmi Brahman and Nawal Garg. The applicants pray that they may be directed to be released on bail. Since the case involved the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the learned single Judge thought that there was a conflict of judicial opinion in that regard, be referred the case to a Division Bench. This is bow the case has come up before us.2. The two applicants Lakshmi Brahman and Nawal Garg were accused in a case under Section 302, I. P.C. They surrendered themselves before a Magistrate on 2nd November, 1974 and were taken into custody on the same day. However, the police failed to submit a charge-sheet against them, within 60 days of their arrest (the charge-sheet had not been submitted even upto 5th February, 1975). The applicants, therefore, moved the present application and claimed that once the police failed to submit a charge-sheet within a period of 60 days o...
Murari Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ243
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision was admitted on the question of sentence. The prosecution case in brief, was that on 10-4-1974 the accused who was an employee of the Railway came out of the NSD when he was checked as he was suspected to be carrying with him some Railway property. On search being made he was found to be in possession of a baring brass piece weighing 3.250 Kg. and measuring 7'x4'. It was found concealed under the Langot underneath the trousers. The property was identified to be the Railway property and the circumstances in which it was recovered from the applicant proved that he was in possession of the Railway property unlawfully.2. Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 provides for penalty for unlawful possession of railway property. The possession is punishable(a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a. term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentio...
Ch. Birbal Singh Vs. Harphool Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1976All23
M.P. Saxena, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgmentand decree dated 27th April, 1966. passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut, dismissing his suit for the recovery of RS. 1500/-.2. The plaintiff-appeallant had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,500/-on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 11-6-1962 for Rs. 1,000/- alleged to have been executed by the defendants and carrying an interest at the rate of one and a half per cent per mensem. Nothing was said to have been paid towards this loan.3. The defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendants neither borrowed any amount nor executed the pronote and the receipt in suit; that the plaintiff had to get a joint wall of the parties re-constructed and the defendants were to bear half costs. In that connection the plaintiff obtained their thumb impressions on blank papers. It was alleged that they had paid Rs. 230/- to the plaintiff as their contribution towards the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »