Allahabad Court March 1977 Judgments
Hari Shankar Vs. Durga Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All455
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal. They have lost in both the courts below and have come up in the instant appeal.2. The brief facts are these:--The deity sued as the plaintiff for a declaration that the deity was the owner of house No. 211, Faithful Ganj, Kanpur. One Pilamber Lal was the original owner of many properties including the one in dispute in the suit. He died some time in 1932 and on his death, dispute arose between various parties. One Raghubir Prasad claimed to be the adopted son of the said Pitamber Lal. Smt. Rukmani Kunwar was the widow and Newaji Lal was the brother of the said Pitamber Lal-Raghubir Prasad filed suit No. 28 of 1933 in the court of the Civil Judge, Kanpur, wherein Newaji Lal and Smt. Rukmani Kunwar were made defendants. There were certain other defendants also in the said suit. The prayer in the suit was that a declaration be granted that in terms of the will dated 17th September, 1932 of the said Pitamber Lal, the plaintiff Ragh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Popular Photo Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC171(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Meerut, referred the following question to this court under Section 11(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover in respect of photographs taken and supplied by the assessee are works contract 2. When the matter came up before this court on an earlier occasion a supplementary statement of the case was called for. This has now been done. From the statement of the case as now completed, it appears that the assessee deals in photographic material and also prepares photographs for his customers. For the year 1968-69, the assessee disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 29,788.42 and a net turnover of sales of Rs. 5,756.57. This consisted, inter alia, of an amount of Rs. 4,205.07 as representing sale of photographic goods, Rs. 24,031.85 representing sale of photographic prints and Rs. 1,551.50 representing sales of albums. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the turnover as discl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Popular Photo Company.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)175
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Judge, (Revisions) Sales Tax, Meerut, referred the following questions to this Court under S. 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover in respect of photographs taken and supplied by the assessee are works contract ?'2. When the matter came up before this court on an earlier occasion a supplementary statement of the case was called for. This has now been done. From the statement of the case as now completed, it appears that the assessee deals in photographic material and also prepares photographs for his customers. For the year 1966-69 the assessee disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 29,788.42 nP. and a turnover of sales of Rs. 5,756.57 nP. This consisted inter alia of an amount of Rs. 4,205.07 nP. as representing sale of photographic goods, Rs. 24,031.85 nP. representing sale of photographic prints; and Rs. 1551.50 representing sales of albums. The Sales tax Officer did not accept the turnover ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Gurdas Mal Daya Ram.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)155
ORDERR. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly, was legally justified in directing that the assessees purchases, the extent they were made from other registered dealers, in respect of oil seeds on and from 1.10.1964, should be exempted from tax irrespective of any other considerations 2. The revision was allowed and the case was sent back to the Assessing Authority to find out whether the purchases made by the assessee were from a registered dealer. It was obviously done on the basis of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shadi Ram Ganga Prasad vs. State of U.P. The question stands concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. vs. M/s. Channa Lal Ratan.3. Following the latter decision, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the Departme...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)177
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.2. The facts of the case having been set out in the statement of case it is unnecessary to repeat them.3. The Income Tax Tribunal has referred to this Court the following four question of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of interest paid by the assessee company under S. 3(3) of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Validation) Act, 1961 was allowable expenditure ?2. Whether interest charged under S. 3(3) of the aforesaid Act was a penalty for infringement of law ?3. Whether the assessment order passed by 'Sur Tax Officer' was valid in law ?4. Whether the provision for taxation and dividend being the reserves should have been included in the Capital base for Statutory Determination ?'The answer to question Nos. 1 and 2 above are fully covered by the ruling of this Court in Kamla Pat Moti Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Sola Mal Jalim Singh Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC166(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. These three references under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act are at the instance of the same assessee and relate to three different years, namely, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.2. The common question referred to this court in all the three refer ences is :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, remand order to the appellate authority was justified ?3. The material facts in all three references are briefly these :4. The assessee's books of account for all the three years were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on several grounds. One of such grounds was that the turnover of the assessee in each of the assessment year was dispropor tionately small in relation to the stocks of goods held by the assessee in the respective years. It is not necessary to set out the other grounds on which the account books were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer because the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) has not accepted those grounds in the appeals preferred by...
Tag this Judgment!Sola Mal Jalim Singh Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)178
D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - These three reference under S. 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act are at the instance of the same assessee and relate to three different years namely 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.2. The common question referred to this court in all the three references is :-Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, remand order to the appellate autority was justified ?'3. The material facts in all the three references are briefly these :4. The assessees books of account for all the three years were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on several grounds. One of such grounds was that the turnover of the assessee in each of the assessment years was disproportionately small in relation to the stocks of goods held by the assessee in the respective years. It is not necessary to set out the other grounds on which the account books were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer because the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial)has not accepted those grounds in the appeals preferred by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Goel Vs. 1st Addl. Dist. Judge, Meerut and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All408
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, had come up in the first instance, before a learned single Judge, K. C. Agarwal, J. The order of reference made by his Lordship reads thus:--'The question raised by the learned counsel for the parties is, in my opinion, of general importance and is likely to arise in a number of other petitions, and as my judgment could not be a subject-matter of appeal to a Division Bench, it appears appropriate to refer this case to a larger Bench for deciding the following questions: 1. Whether the irrebuttable presumption incorporated in Explanations (ii) and (iv) of Section 21 is of substantive law or procedure expressed in presumptive form? 2. Whether Section 14 (2) of U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 deleting Explanations (ii) and (iv) is retrospective in operation? 3. Whether the law, as amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, is to be given effect to in the present writ proceedings?'' 2. Under Clause (b) of the proviso to Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Pandey Vs. Jagmohan Lal Shukla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All458
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent On the allegation that the defendant-appellant had been induct-ed as a licencee by the former and the licence had been revoked. Despite the revocation of the licence, the defendant did not vacate and, therefore, possession was sought along with a claim for damages for unauthorised use and occupation, past, pendente lite and future. Both the courts below have decreed the suit. In this second appeal, Shri Markandey Katju, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the plaintiff was only one of the co-owners of the property and his own brother Nokhe Lal, who was another co-owner, had entered the witness box on behalf of the defendant-appellant and thus it should be held that the said co-owner wanted the defendant-appellant to remain in occupation of the accommodation. In this situation, the learned counsel contends that the suit could not be decreed at the instance of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kohli Khan Bhandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR419(All)
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This is an application by the revenue under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) to refer the following question to this court: 'Whether the Tribunal was justified and had material for holding that the assessee's case was covered by the provisions of Rule 6DD(j) of theIncome-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The Tribunal has in para. 4 of its order taken into consideration several circumstances which according to the Tribunal would constitute exceptional and unavoidable circumstances as contemplated by Clause (j) of Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no material before the Tribunal to come to its conclusion. The Tribunal has taken into account the following circumstances, namely, that this was the very first year of the business of the assessee, that the assessee was not known in the market and hence could not make payments by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »