Allahabad Court December 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.
Hind Lamps Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT1(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the question that arises for determination is as to the mode of valuation of the goods manufactured by the petitioner company for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. For the purpose of determination of the value of its product, for levy of excise duty, the petitioner company submitted its price list to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shikohabad (hereinafter called the Superintendent) containing the prices at which it claimed to be selling its products to five companies (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies). He did not accept the price list, but directed the petitioner company to submit the price list in Form IV containing the prices at which five companies to which it sells its entire output (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies) sell those products. The petitioner company has challenged the ...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)207
R. M. Sahai, J. - The short question, on the undisputed facts, that arise for consideration, is the manner of determination of assessable value under S. 4 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. Admittedly, the petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of cigarette and smoking tobaccos of diverse kinds throughout India and owns and operates five cigarette factories in different State including the one at Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh. Under the Self Removal Procedure introduced, with effect from, 1968 the petitioner used to submit price list to the respondents from time to time as required under Rule 173 (c) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Such lists details the prices for the factory to distribution, from distributors, to wholesale dealers, from wholesale dealers to retailers and up to point of time sales to consumers. For the purposes of S. 4 the prices charged by the distributors to wholesale dealers were taken to be the value for assessment purpose.2. It appears tha...
M/S. Hind Lamps Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)0098A
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the question that arises for determination is as to the mode of valuation of the goods manufactured by the petitioner company for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. For the purpose of determination of the value of its product, for levy of excise duty, the petitioner company submitted its price list to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Shikohabad (hereinafter called the Superintendent) containing the price at which it claimed to be selling its products to five companied (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies). He did not accept the price list, but directed the petitioner company to submit the price list in Form IV containing the prices at which five companies to which it sells its entire output (hereinafter referred to as the Customer Companies) sell those products. The petitioner company has challenged the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sripat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR363(All)
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in approving the assessee's method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the wealth-tax authorities as per provision of Rule 1(D) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 '2. The short facts giving rise to this reference are :Proceedings out of which this reference has arisen related to the assessment to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee is an individual. He owned certain shares in companies belonging to J. K. group of companies. Those shares were not regularly quoted in recognised stock exchanges. He worked out the market value of the aforesaid shares by adopting the mean of their break-up value and the fair price of the shares arrived at by taking into account the average yield of the shares on...
P.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Bar Council of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ897
K.B. Asthana, C J.1. This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a senior Advocate of this Court against the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the resolution of the Bar Council and a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the said Council to further carry on proceedings against the petitioner, The petitioner awl another Advocate, against whom also similar steps have been taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, are senior Advocates practising in the High Court. Two Advocates of the High Court SaiVsri G, C. Dwivcdi and N.C. Rajvanshi, who happened to be the members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, sent a letter to the President of the Bar Council which translated in English is as follows:Sir,On 24-4-1970 in Court No. 12 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashodanandan and Hon'ble Mr. justice Seth two advocates...conducted themselves in such a manner as led the two learned Judges to ris...
imamuddIn Vs. the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All300
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. Smt. Champa Devi filed a suit under Section 20.2 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the petitioner. That suit was decreed, Consolidation operations started thereafter. Objections were filed by Imam Uddin claiming to be Sirdar of the disputed land. Smt. Champa Devi claimed to be the Bhumidhar of the said land. On 16-8-1960 the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Imam Uddin. On 1-10-1960, appeal filed by Imam Uddin was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thereafter, on 29-1,2-1960 the Deputy Director dismissed the second appeal filed by Imam Uddin. A revision was again filed before the Joint Director (C) by Imam Uddin which was dismissed on 29-5-1962. It appears that after the decision of the Joint Director dated 29-5-19&2 the village was denotified under Section 52 of the Consolidation of the Hold-Ings Act. On 20-5-1970 Smt. Champa Devi again filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Refo...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All330
Sinha, J. 1. These three First Appeals from order arise out of the order dated 24th July, 1975, passed by the Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr, awarding a sum of Rs. 78,000 as compensation to the claimant under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows;-- Randhir Singh (hereinafter to be called the 'claimant') was working as a driver on Tempo No. UPPP 3480 which belonged to his brother Raj Bir Singh. On 10th of October, 197.2, the claimant was driving the tempo from Bulandshahr to Sikandarabad with six passengers in it. At about 3 p. m., when the tempo was near village Lalpurat a distance of three miles from Sikandarabad, Truck No. U.P.P. 1739 was seen coming from the opposite side, driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Noticing that the claimant took down his tempo on the kachcha part of the road to his left. The truck however, came down on that side of the road and dashed against the tempo, as a result of which th...
Chhote Lal Jaiswal Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC599(All)
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax for the assessment year 1957-58. Sri R.C. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the authorities cannot proceed with the recovery of sales tax in the absence of service of demand notice on the petitioner. Sri Sharma submitted that one Vasudeo on whom the demand notice is said to have been served, had not been authorised by the petitioner to receive any such demand notice and that hence the demand notice served on him could not form the basis for proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax from the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is explained that Vasudeo had appeared before the assessing authority on behalf of the petitioner and had produced the books of account. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that Vasudeo had no authority to represent the petitioner cannot be accepted, even though...
Ramzan Ali Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All105
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the Town Area Committee, Bharatganj, (hereinafter referred to as the Committee), held on 25-9-1976. He has also prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Allahabad, not to interfere with his (the petitioner) functioning as the Chairman of the Committee.2. The material facts necessary for the decision of this writ petition, are briefly these: Bharatganj Town Area, Committee was constituted under the U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Committee consists of ten members including the Chairman. The petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Committee, Some members of the Committee presented to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, on 26-4-1976 a notice of their intention to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner who was the Chairman. The Dist...
Sri Tharoo Mal Vs. Sri Puran Chand Pandey, Commissioner, Rohilkhand Di ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)64
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the levy of Theatre Tax imposed by the Municipal Board, Pilibhit (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Board).2. The material facts necessary for the decision of this petition, are briefly these : The petitioner is a partner in a cinema theatre in Pilibhit town which has a population of about 70,000. At its meeting held on 11-4-1972, the Municipal Board passed a resolution proposing to levy Theatre Tax at the rate of Rs. 25 per show. The Municipal Board published the above proposal in the manner prescribed by S. 94 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 16-5-1972, in a local Hindi Weekly Deshvhakt. No objections to this proposal were received from any one within 15 days from the date of such publication. Thereafter the Municipal Board submitted the proposal under sub-S. (4) of S. 132 to the Prescribed Authority, namely, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »