Allahabad Court January 1976 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.
PravIn Liladhar Dholakia Vs. C.T.A. Pillai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1813
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The petitioner is the elder brother of Lalit Liladhar Dholakia (hereinafter referred as to the detenu) who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA). Being amenable to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court at the time of his detention, the detenu's wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 23 of 1975 in the High Court of Bombay on 4-1-1975 challenging the provisions of the COFEPOSA (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Conditions Order). On 7-1-1975 the petitioner also filed Habeas Corpus Petition in the Supreme Court being Writ Petition No. 3 of 1975 challenging the detention order pfss-ed against the detenu. On 9-2-1975 the detenu was transferred from Bombay to Agra and detained in Central Jail, Agra vide order of the Secretary to the Government of India passed under Section 5(b...
M/S. Kanpur National Supply Co., Kanpur Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)128
K. B. Asthana, C.J. - We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find that a case has been made out for asking for a statement of the case is that the Tribunal on the question proposed in the application. The simple case is that the applicant reconstituted their firm and applied for registration. The application for registration was delayed by more than a month. The Income-tax Officer held that there was no sufficient case made out for excusing the delay. The application was rejected. It is worthwhile to mention that the applicants themselves filed the return as an unregistered firm. Before the Tribunal again the matter was agitated. The Tribunal observed at one place in its judgement that as a new case was being set up for condoning the delay, the question would not be considered. The learned counsel submitted that this is a mistake of fact on the part of the Tribunal as no new case was being set up. Observing this, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay on the qu...
M/S. Kanpur National Supply Company, Kanpur Vs. the Commissioner of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0126A
K. B. Asthana, C.J. - After having heard the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal :-(i) Whether there was any material for the Tribunal to hold that it was not a case of succession and was a case of change in the constitution of the firm (ii) Whether on the correct interpretation of section 188, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the two periods was liable to be clubbed and assessed at one place and the two assessments for the two periods were not necessary (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the case did not fall within the provisions of section 188 and the firm was not entitled to continuation of registration under section 184(7) for the period 1st January 1969 to 2nd May, 1969 2. We accordingly direct the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case and refer the questions aforementioned to this Court f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.L. Textiles
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR37(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts necessary for the decision of this reference may be shortly stated. The assessee is a registered firm and carried on the business ofmanufacturing of tents, etc. For the year 1964-65, it filed a return showing an income of Rs. 43,395. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income at Rs. 81,786 by making certain additions including an amount of Rs. 15,000 standing in the name of Smt. Parvati Devi and two other cash credits of Rs. 5,000 each standing in the name of Smt. Shrimati Devi and Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Devi. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, these additions were upheld, but the t...
Krishna Rao Palne Vs. Pramila Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1819
ORDERH.N. Kapoor, J.1. This revision has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 27-4-1974 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi, in a case under Section 488, Cr. P.C. By this order he had rejected the application for setting aside his earlier order dated 26-3-1974 restoring the case under Section 488, Cr. P.C. which had been dismissed in default of appearance of Pramila Bai at whose instance the proceedings had been initiated.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to restore the proceedings which had already been dismissed in default on 25-3-1974 and the earlier order dated 26-3-1974 passed by the Magistrate was without jurisdiction. The revision should have been primarily filed against the order dated 26-3-1974 and not against the order dated 27-4-1974. In the prayer no doubt it has been prayed that the orders dated 27-4-1974 and 26-7-1974 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi, be set aside. L...
M/S. Ram Chandra Shiv Shankar Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0242A
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Revising Authority, Varanasi has referred the following questions for our opinion :-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the purchases of foodgrains amounting to Rs. 67023-38 made from Regional Food Controller U.P. is exempt under section 3D (1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act being not the first purchase or not ?2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, it is the petitioner who had under section 3D (1) to furnish the proof of the deposit of tax by the first purchaser for claiming exemption from the liability of tax as a condition precedent ?3. Whether the finding of the learned Additional Revising Authority in not allowing exemption on the above purchases is justified and legal on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The assessee carried on business in foodgrains. A turnover of net purchases to the extent of Rs. 2,23,862/-had been filed in the assessment year 1966-67. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the boo...
Mithan Lal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All286
K.N. Seth, J. 1. In October, 1965, a number of routes in Meerut and Bareilly Regions were amalgamated and an inter-regional route Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur-Bijnor-Lawan-Phalauda - Khatauli was created. One Ganga Saran held a permanent stage carriage permit on the said route which was to expire on 11-10-1967. On 24-7-1967 he applied for renewal of his permit. On 19-8-1967 the appellant Mithan Lal made an application for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the aforesaid route. The renewal application of Ganga Saran and the application of Mithan Lal were published in the U. P. Gazette dated 23-9-1967 inviting objections. On 13-10-1967 Mithan Lal filed objections to the renewal application of Ganga Saran. Objections were filed by other persons also to the renewal application of Ganga Saran. The Regional Transport Authority considered the renewal application of Ganga Saran and by its order dated May 8/10, 1968, rejected the objections and renewed Ganga Saran's permit. Mithan Lal's ap...
Rishi Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Nanoomal Yadav and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All365
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 17-9-1975, allowing the writ petition filed by Nannoomal Yadav, respondent No. 1. By the said petition the respondent No. 1 challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Commissioner dated July 21, 1975, purporting to be under Section 34 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts are as under:-- Firozabad town has a Municipal Board consisting of twenty eight members including the President. A meeting was convened by the President of the Municipal Board for April 28, 1975 to consider a number of matters. One of the matters mentioned in the agenda was about the election of a Senior and a Junior Vice-President for the said Board. The meeting took place on the aforesaid date but as the requisite number of members to constitute the quorum were not present in the said meeting, the same was adjourned for 29th of April 1975. On April 29,...
Mohta Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC11(All)
A. Banerji, J.1. These are three references under Section 11(1) read with Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act submitted by the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Gorakhpur, at the instance of the assessee. The question submitted for the decision of the court is :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Revising Authority, Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur, was justified in holding the turnover of cotton sewing thread on cops and cones taxable and not exempt under Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956 ?2. The assessee deals in cotton sewing thread. In respect of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 the assessee claimed that the sales made by it in respect of 'cotton sewing thread on cops and cones' was not liable to sales tax as it came within the meaning of the words 'cotton yarn on cops and cones', which was totally exempt from sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer rejected this contention. The appellate authority, however, held that cot...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Niazia Electric Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC439(All)
K.B. Asthana, C.J.1. We have heard the learned standing counsel. We adopt the definition of commutator given in the British Encyclopaedia which is 'a device in a dynamo by which an alternating current is converted into a continuous one'. A continuous current is also electricity. A continuous current cannot be generated unless a commutator is used in a dynamo. Continuous current, therefore, can only be generated or produced through the use of the commutator. Commutator thus would be a device or an instrument which is connected with the generation of electricity. Commutator does not consume electricity. It only generates it though of a particular species. It is, therefore, different from the category of 'electrical goods' and forms the class of goods known as 'electrical equipment' as defined in Notification No. ST-7096/X-1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965.2. We, therefore, answer the question referred in the negative, against the Sales Tax Commissioner and in favour of the assessee. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »