Allahabad Court May 1976 Judgments
Banney Khan Vs. the Chief Inspector of Stamp, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All475
Saxena, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the Chief Controlling RevenueAuthority, viz., the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh.2. Admittedly in an auction BanneyKhan applicant took the contract for collection of toll from the premises known as 'New Sabzimandi' belonging to the Municipal Board, Ujhani, District Budaun, for the period 1st of April, 1967, to March 1968. In pursuance of this auction a document (Annexure I to the Reference) describing the Municipal Board, Ujhani, as 'the lessor' and the applicant as 'the lessee' was executed by both the parties on 31-3-1967. Stamp duty of Rs. 2.50 was paid on this document. The essential terms of the agreement were that during the said period of one year the lessee will remain in possession of the subject-matter of lease and will realise toll on all the goods at the rates provided by the lessor. The lessee will pay to the lessor for such permission a sum of Rs. 23,700/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- will b...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976All478
O.P. Trivedi, J.1. This a defendant's appeal and arises from a suit for ejectment from a shop and for damages for use and occupation which was filed against him by the respondent Babu Ram. The plaintiff-respondent's case was that the shop was let out to the appellant for a fixed period of one year on an annual rental of Rs. 1000/- which was paid in advance. The appellant's tenancy came to an end on 1st September, 1970 and yet the appellant did not vacate the shop and continued to remain in possession wrongfully. There was thus a claim for damages for use and occupation from 2-9-1970 to 15-11-71 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per year. It may be mentioned here that the suit was filed on 16-11-71. The shop lies in a Notified Area to which the provisions of U. P. Act III of 1947 did not apply. The defence was that the provisions of U. P. Act III of 1947 were applicable and that in any case the defendant could not be evicted except on grounds mentioned in Section 20 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, her...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seth Devi Chand and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR724(All)
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(a)?' 2. The assessee, a firm, consisted of four partners. The business of the assessee-company was deriving income from its share in lease money paidby the lessors of the S. B. Sugar Mills, Bijnor, and from dealings in groundnut and seeds. The Income-tax Officer issued notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was served on the assessee on June 24, 1963, requiring it to file its return of income by 23rd July, 1963. The firm filed its return after a delay of 17 months on 28th December, 1964. Penalty proceedings were initiated and show-cause notice was served on the assessee on 25th March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/S. Brij Ratan Lal Boop Kishore.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0254A
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Branch C) :'Whether upon the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal quashing the penalty imposed upon the assessee by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is right in law, specially having regard to the terms of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. The return was filed by the assessee showing an income of Rs. 46,228/-. The assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer on a total income of Rs. 74,273/- which was subsequently reduced by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner to Rs. 63,773/- As the returned income fell short of 80 per cent. of the assessed income the Income Tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. As the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1000/- the case was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner u...
Tag this Judgment!H.B. Ghosh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)171; [1977]110ITR247(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question for our opinion:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 52 are attracted and the assessee is liable to pay tax on the capital gains '2. The facts leading up to this case may be shortly stated. The assessee received a plot of land measuring 5 kattas 6 chits and 36 square feet in Lake Garden Area in the Bangur Land Development Scheme at Calcutta from his brother, Sri H. S. Ghosh, on July 2, 1963. This plot was sold by the assessee to Sri J. C. Sarvadhikari for a sum of Rs. 20,000 on March 21, 1964. The purchaser was the father-in-law of the assessee's daughter. The Income-tax Officer took the View that inasmuch as the assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 21,123 and the fair market value of the property on the date of transfer was not less than Rs. 42,000, the provisions of Section 52 of the Act were applicable and as Such he i...
Tag this Judgment!Jamuna Das Ram Kishan Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC443(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Kanpur, has under Section 11(4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act referred the following question for our opinion :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the revising authority in the department's Revision No. 623 of 1969 is valid in view of the order of the revising authority in the assessee's Revision No. 1733 of 1968 passed earlier 2. The assessee carried on the business in Sutli jute goods, etc., in the year 1964-65. He declared a net turnover of Rs. 28,57,355.69. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the accounts and fixed the turnover as Rs. 31,10,000. An appeal was filed against this order before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who reduced the turnover to Rs. 29,20,000. A revision was filed by the assessee before the revising authority, but that was dismissed. The department also preferred a revision against the order of the appellate authority, but that revision was not heard along wi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jamuna Das Ram Kishan Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)284
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Judge Revisions Sales Tax, Kanpur has under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act referred the following question for our opinion :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the revising authority in the Departments revision No. 623 of 1969 is valid in view of the order of the Revising Authority in the assessees revision No. 1733 of 1968 passed earlier ?'The assessee carried on the business in Sutli jute goods etc. in the year 1964-65. He declared a net turnover of Rs. 28,57,355.69p. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the accounts and fixed the turnover of Rs. 31,10,000/-. An appeal was filed against this order before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who reduced the turnover to Rs. 29,20,000/-. A revision was filed by the assessee before the Revising Authority but that was dismissed. The Department also preferred a revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, but that revision was not heard along wit...
Tag this Judgment!The National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All63
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decision of a learned single Judge of this court dated 14-4-1970. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be shortly stated. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Jute Mills) was in arrears of Sales Tax, Provident Fund Contributions and Employees' State Insurance dues amounting to nearly Rupees 20,06,136.40 Paise. Certificates were sent to the Collector. Kanpur to recover this amount as arrears of land revenue. The National Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as N. I. D. C.) had advanced an amount of Rupees 8,00,000 to Jute Mills under an English Mortgage dated 20-7-1971 and another amount of Rs. 9.5 lacs under like mortgage on 27-6-1964. Certain amounts had been paid to the mortgages and the amount outstanding against the Mills was Rs, 13,31,186.28 Paise. On the properties of the Mills being attached 'by the Collector for recovery of the Sales Tax, Provident Fund Cont...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Chaman Lal Bery
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR865(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 60,000 gifted by the assessee to his SODS is includible in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on his death under Section 10 of Estate Duty Act, 1953?'2. The deceased, late Sri B. C. Bery, was originally carrying on a business known as London Machinery Company. On November 1, 1951, he gifted to two of his sons who were majors Rs. 20,000 each and took them as partners in his business with the above sum as their capital. The sons were given one-fourth share each and he retained half share. Again, on April 1, 1956, when a third son became major he was also given a gift of Rs. 20,000 and taken as a partner in the business with that money as his capital. He was given one-fourth share and the deceased retained the remaining share till his death which took plac...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gauri Vishwanath Dal Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR274(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question was referred for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning either of Section 187(2)(a) or section 187(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the assessee-firm was entitled to the renewal of registration for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 ?' The assessee was originally constituted under a partnership deed dated 18th September, 1956, consisting of four partners, namely, Sri Madan Lal, Sri Krishna, Sri Satish Chandra and Sri Jagdish Chandra and three minors, namely, Sri Harish Chandra, Sri Girish Chandra and Sri Vijai Kumar, admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Registration was granted to the firm under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1959-60 and the same was renewed from year to year up to the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »