Allahabad Court March 1977 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.
Babulal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2008
Prem Prakash, J.1. This matter upon a reference made ' by a learned single Judge of this Court ariess from a conviction Under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (to be hereinafter referred as the Act.). The questions raised in the case are these :1. Whether an officer of the Force making an inquiry Under Section 8(2) read with Section 9 of the Act is bound to furnish copies of the statements of persons examined by him Under Section 173(4) of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure (Correponding to Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973).?2. Whether, if it is not obligatory upon the prosecution to supply the copies, an accused in order to show the contradiction or inconsistency between the statement of the witness at the trial and what he had stated before the inquiry officer, can call in evidence for the copy for the purposes of Section 145 Indian Evidence Act?3. If the answer to the above is in the negative, in what manner the trial court should a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Lallumal Ramesh Chand.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)122
R. M. Sahai, J. - This is an application under S. 256 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.2. The two question raised on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-Tax for being referred to this Court are :(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was material on record justifying the Tribunals finding that the assessee has discharged the onus under the Explanation to S. 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalty of Rs. 32,000/- imposed by the I.A.C. under S. 271(1)(c) read with its Explanation.3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has found it as a fact that ht assessee did not commit any fraud not was it guilty of wilful negligence and concealment of its income in filing its return. This is a pure finding of fact and we do not think that any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The second question is of a consequential nature. Accordingly we di...
L. Deep Chandra Vs. Lala Raghuraj Swarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All370
R.B. Misra, J.1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 5th Aug., 1965. It came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, but as a question of law of general importance was involved in this case, the learned Single Judge referred it to a larger Bench. This is how the present appeal has come before us.2. The material facts to bring out the point involved in the case are as follows:--The dispute between the parties centres round ten plots, situate in village Yusufpur Mahal Rustam Ali Khan, pargana, tahsil and district Muzaffarnagar. Admittedly, Rai Mal and Bhartu were the tenants-in-chief of the said plots, owned by the present appellant, They executed a sub-lease on 10th March, 1950, in favour of Raghuraj Swarup, the respondent, for a period af five years, commencing from 1st January, 1950, to 31st December, 1954. The tenants -in-chief, however, surrendered the disputed land in favour of the appel...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Jawan Radios
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: [1984]146ITR504(All)
Chandrashekhar, J.1. In this application under sub-s, (2) of Section 256 ofthe I.T. Act, 1961, the Revenue has sought for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') to refer,to this court the following two questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is not vitiated in law as it is either on assumptions not siipported by evidence or on evidence which could not be used against the Department as no opportunity was given to it ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 8,000 imposed by the Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' The order of the Tribunal shows that from certain circumstances in the case, it (the Tribunal) inferred that the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 7,000 at the persuasion of the ITO. It is well settled that the...
Ratan Udyog Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR1(All)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash certain proceedings of the Income-tax Officer. The petitioner had also prayed for a declaration that Rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules are void and unconstitutional, but Sri R. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, gave up this part of the prayer of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated May 1, 1971. A minor had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The petitioner had made an application under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1973-74. Following the decision of this court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Uttam Kumar Promod Kumar : [1974]97ITR730(All) , the Income-tax Officer, Circle-I (1), Kanpur, refused to grant registration to the ...
Ratan Udyog Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)0134A
ORDERD. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash certain proceedings of the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had also prayed for a declaration that Rule 6-DD of the Income Tax Rules are void and unconstitutional, but Shri R. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, agave up this part of the prayer of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated 1-5-1971. A minor had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The petitioner had made an application under S. 184 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for registration of the firm the assessment year 1973-74. Following the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur vs. Uttam Kumar Pramod Kumar, Auriya, the Income Tax Officer, Circle I(I), Kanpur, refused to grant registration of the firm under S. 185 of the...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Radhey Shyam Prashari.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)129
Chandrashekhar, J. - We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri R. K. Gulati for the opposite party.2. While dealing with a revision petition for the assessment year 1965-66, the Judge (Revision) Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, made a casual observation that the assessment proceedings in respect of the opposite party for the years 1964-65, and 1966-67, could not be justified. Obviously this observation is an obiter inasmuch as it was not necessary for disposing of the revision for the assessment year 1965-66. The anxiety of the Revenue is that this obiter may influence the mind of the assessing authority in making the assessment of the opposite party for the years 1964-65 and 1966-67. it is for this reason that Revenue has sought for a reference to this court.3. Sri Gulati did not dispute that the aforesaid observation which is an obiter, should not influence the mind of the assessing authority in making the assessments on the opposite party for the years 1964...
Bhuneshwar Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All413
Hari Swarup, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge by which he allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur passed in appeal under Section 16-G (c) of the Intermediate Education Act (U. P. Act II of 1921) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petition was filed by the Managing Committee, Narendra Deva Higher Secondary School, Jalalpur district Faizabad. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 3 had been serving as the Principal of the Institution but as his conduct was not satisfactory, after taking disciplinary proceedings a resolution was passed for removing him from service. Papers were sent for approval of the District Inspector of Schools, but he did not accord his approval. The Managing Committee then preferred the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. A point was raised on behalf of the employee before the learned single Judge that the Managing Committee not being a legal entity...
Vishwa Nath Vs. Smt. Maharaji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977All459
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order whereby the lower appellate court extended the period for the filing of cross-objection by the plaintiff-respondent in the said court. The order under revision shows that on 1st March, 1974, the notice of the appeal was served by affixation at the plaintiff's residence. She filed the cross-objection on April. 15, 1974 and from the date of the affixation of notice more than 30 days had passed and, therefore, the cross-objection was not within the period laid down in Order 41. Rule 22 C. P. C. However, the lower appellate court extended the benefit under the said provision and allowed the cross-objection to be treated within time by extending the period for the filing thereof up to April 15, 1974. The defendant fell aggrieved with the said order and has come up before me in the instant revision and in support thereof I have heard Shri K.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel fo...
Manni Lal Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)294
Chandrashekhar, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order (Annexure-III) made by Income-tax Officer under S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and the order dated 10-9-1964 made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred as the Commissioner) under S. 26A of the Act on a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Income-tax Officer.2. For the assessment year 1967-68 the Income Tax Officer had made an order assessing the income of the petitioner for that year. Subsequently the Income Tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner under Ss. 154 and 155 of the Act asking the petitioner to show not be rectified. In that notice it was stated that one of the mistakes in the assessment order which was sought to be rectified was regarding not levying the surcharge. The petitioner neither sent any reply to the show cause notice nor appeared before the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »