Allahabad Court September 1976 Judgments
Prabhandhak Samiti and anr. Vs. Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshak, Allahabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All164
M.N. Shukla, J.1. A preliminary point has arisen in this case as to whether a writ petition drafted in Hindi in Deo Nagri script and presented in this Court can be entertained and adjudicated upon. The present writ petition was drafted in Hindi, so also the accompanying affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit and the petitioner insists on the writ petition being heard and decided as it stands. Since it is a question of law of general importance, we propose to decide the same and we cannot refrain from observing that we received valuable assistance on this point from Sri S. N. Kacker, who appeared for the petitioner and who entered, if we may say so, a vigorous defence in favour of Hindi.2. The transition from one official Court language to another whether it be under the impact of political freedom or the efflorescence of nationalist sentiment or both, is often preceded by grave misgivings, apprehensions, and even open or veiled hostility. The traditionalists feel aggrieved by what they ...
Tag this Judgment!O.C.M. Ltd. (London) (Now Named as Ralli International Ltd. (London)) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR722(All)
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders of the income-tax authorities and has also prayed for issue of a direction to the Income-tax Officer to refund certain amount of tax. 2. The case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows : The petitioner is anon-resident company which is holding shares in three companies registeredin India. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1955-56the petitioner received dividends from these three companies. One of thesecompanies, namely, M/s. O.C.M. India (Private) Ltd., had declared aninterim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 and a final dividend of Rs. 1,15,000. Outof the gross interim dividend of Rs. 2,30,000 M/s. O.C.M. India (Private)Ltd. had deducted at the source Rs. 57,500 towards income-tax andRs. 11,500 towards super-tax. While sending its return of income for theassessment year 1965-66 the petitioner omitted to include the interimdividend of Rs. 30,0...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pilot Shoe Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC95(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. Both these references arise out of a common order of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, in two revision petitions before him preferred by the same assessee.2. The question referred by the Judge (Revisions) reads :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the account books were rejected, the disclosed turnover should have also not been accepted 3. The material facts, briefly stated, are these : The assessee is a dealer in shoes. For the assessment year 1965-66 it (the assessee) filed returns for assessments under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. It returned a turnover of Rs. 27,190.56 for assessment under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and a turnover of Rs. 1,44,737.10 for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act.4. At two surveys conducted by the sales tax authorities, it was found that the assessee had not maintained accounts regularly and that all its transactions were not shown in its books of account....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Pilot Shoe Factory.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)3
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - Both these references arise out of a common order of the Additional Judge (Revision) Sales Tax, Agra, in two revision petitions before him preferred by the same assessee.2. The question referred by the Judge (Revision) reads :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when the account books were rejected the disclosed turnover should have also not been accepted ?'3. The material facts briefly stated, are these : The assessee is a dealer in shoes. For the assessment year 1965-66 it (the assessee) filed returns for assessments under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. It returned a turnover of Rs. 27,190.56 for assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act; and a turnover of Rs. 1,44,737.10 for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act.3. At two surveys conducted by the Sales Tax authorities, it was found that the assessee had not maintained accounts regularly and that all its transactions were not shown, in its books of account. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhajanlal Ganga Nath Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All196
H.N. Kapoor, J.1.This is a defendant's appeal against the decree and judgment dated 16-9-1967 of the Addl. Civil Judge, Etah in civil appeal No. 112 of 1966 confirming the decree and judgment dated 14-5-1966 of the Munsif, Kasganj in original suit No. 312 of 19&5 by which the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1286.90 and ejectment of the defendant from the shop in dispute was decreed. The plaintiff was also allowed pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 33.33 P.M.2. The plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment from the shop in dispute and also for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,286.00 np. on the allegations that the shop was let out to the defendant on the 9th of July, 19:58 at the rate of Rs. 33.33 np. The defendant had not paid rent since September, 1962 and as such a combined notice under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act as well as under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was served on him and his tenancy was termi...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR27(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J 1. The controversy raised in this petition falls within a very narrow compass. We will set out only such facts as are necessaryfor the disposal of this application. The question that arises is as to whether there was valid service of the notice of demand on the assessee, petitioner No. 1. The petitioner, in his petition, has alleged that no notice of demand was served on him. In order to ascertain the facts correctly we directed Sri Deokinandan, counsel for the department, to produce the relevant papers. The 'record was produced in court. From the record, it appears that N. D. challan for interest and challan for regular payment and I. T. 30 Form were sent by the process server addressed to the petitioner, assessee No. 1, on October 3, 1972 ; the process server on the back of this made the following endorsement in Hindi which translated runs:'I inquired at a number of places but could not find out.' 2. On October 4, 1972, i.e., on the next day, the Income-tax Officer pa...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamlapat Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR769(All)
Chandrashekhar, J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred to this court the following question of law : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 were barred by limitation and Sections 150(1) and 153(3), Explanation 2, did not save the limitation for issue of notice as provided under Section 149 of the Act '2. The material facts of the case are these : The assessee is a firm engaged in the manufacture of sugar. The original orders of assessment of its income for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were made on March 31, 1964. For the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 4,49,704 and Rs. 4,18,291 as expenditure on excise duty on stocks of sugar held at its factories on the last day of the relevant previous year. The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Moid and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1325
ORDERG.D. Srivastava, J.1. The applicants in this revision are Abdul Moid, Abdul Majeed, Mohd. Amin and Mohd. Fareed, Messrs. Button House is also one of the applicants. It appears that this firm is an unnecessary party, simply because there is no order of conviction against the firm. The admitted facts of the case are that a firm known as Messrs Button House used to carry on the business of selling certain drugs and other articles in the locality known as Hazratganj in the city of Lucknow. The partners in this firm are Abdul Moid, Abdul Majeed Mohd. Saeed and Mohd. Amin. On 12-8-1971, the Drug Inspector purchased a drag named Boroline from the said business premises for a sum of Rs. 1.50 and obtained a cash memo. The Inspector again visited the firm on 20-8-1971 and seized the remaining stock of the said drug which was being exhibited for sale and stock in the premises of the said firm. It is alleged that the said firm did not possess any licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Kiran Metal Manufacturing Works.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)38
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court :-'Whether in view of the above facts and circumstance of the case the turnover of stove and its part would be taxable @ 2% as an unclassified item, or as an articles covered under Notification No. 2104/X-902(16)-52 dated May 21, 1963 taxable @ 3%?.'2. The short facts giving rise to this reference, are that the assessee carried on business of manufacturing and selling stove parts. The turnover for the year had been disclosed as Rs. 9,503/-. The account books of the assessee were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer, who made the assessment to the best of his judgment and determined taxable turnover at Rs. 25,000/-. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed, against which he filed a revision in which the determination of the turnover at Rs. 25,000/- was maintained but it was held that stove art were unclassified goods taxable at the rate of 2%. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Additional Re...
Tag this Judgment!Chaubey Sushil Chandra Vs. Raj Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All259
R.B. Misra, J.1. These are two appeals against the common judgment of the First Additional Civil Judge, Agra dated 24th September 1956 in two cross suits between the parties. Suit No. 91 of 1952 giving rise to First Appeal No. 29 of 1957 was filed by Raj Bahadur against Chaubey Sushil Chand. Keshri Mal and Prem Chand, while suit No. 75 of 1952 giving rise to First Appeal No. 33 of 1957 was filed by. Chaubey Sushil Chand against Raj Bahadur. The material facts leading upto these appeals are as follows:2. There is a glass factory known as Hanuman Glass Works at Station Road, Firozabad, Chaubey Sushil Chand was the sole owner till 1929 or 1930. In or about the year 1930-31 late Lal Pyare Lal uncle of Raj Bahadur appeared on the scene. He was taken in either as partner or on commission and his share was fixed at 3/6 in a rupee. In or about the year 1935 Lal Pyare Lal started another business for the purchase and pale of sand etc. used in the manufacture of glass in the name and style of La...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »