Allahabad Court January 1978 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.
S. M. Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Deputy Collector Sales Tax, Collection and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)356
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved against a notice dated 9th October, 1974, in which a sum of Rs. 75,750.84 was demanded as payable as sales-tax for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1967-68. The petitioners were threatened with attachment as well as arrest in case they failed to deposit the demanded tax along with 18% as interest.2. The petitioners grievance is twofold. In the first place he states that some of the petitioners had been arrested earlier but on their objection, inter alia on the ground that they had not inherited any asset from the deceased dealer, they were not personally liable. Another objection was that the health of the arrested persons was not good. Ultimately the arrested persons were released after about a weeks detention, without an adjudication of the objection whether the petitioners have or have not inherited any asset from the deceased dealer. In the next place the petitioners grievance is that in any event they are not liable to be arres...
Saru Smelting and Refining Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR766(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee spent a sum of Rs. 17,440 for erecting a gate in the Gandhi Garden at Meerut and installing a statue of late Jugmandar Dass Jain, who was the founder-director of the assessee-company. The garden where the statue was installed belonged to the Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt. The assessee claimed this amount as a deductible revenue expenditure. The ITO repelled the claim which finding was upheld by the AAC as well as by the Tribunal.2. The assessee claimed that after the erection of the statue the sales had increased continuously. The expenditure in question has been done from a practical businessman's point of view because the expenditure was with a view to increase the profit of the business of the company.3. The statue was not in the business premises of the company but in a municipal garden. The Tribunal held that it is difficult to hold that persons who have or had business dealing w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mathura Prasad Annoolal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR372(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. At the instance of the CIT, U. P., Lucknow, the ITA Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no change took place in the constitution of the firm on March 14, 1969, in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70, when Shri Radhey Lal attained majority and for that year his rights and liabilities continued under the deed of partnership dated April 15, 1967, and the firm was entitled to the benefit of continuation of registration under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the basis of that partnership deed ?'2. The assessee was a partnership firm originally constituted under a deed of partnership dated 15th April, 1967. It consisted of three partners. Sheo Kumar Shah and Radhey Lal Shah, who were minors at the time of the execution of the deed of partnershi...
Presolite of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Munsif Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ538
ORDERP.N. Goel, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 Cr.PC Sri V. K, Burman, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tapan Ghosh, counsel for the respondent no. 2, have been heard at length.2. Sri Genda Lai Sharma, respondent no. 2, is a partner in M/s Yogesh Metal Industries, Aligarh. A complaint (copy Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit of Sri Genda Lai Sharma, respondent no. 2) was filed by the respondent no. 2 in the court of Munsif Magistrate Under Section 420 IPC The Munsif Magistrate recorded statements of the witnesses Under Section 202 of the Cr.PC and then passed order on 4-6-1976 summoning the accused.3. Sri Tapan Ghosh has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate is interlocutory in nature, that no revision is permissible against such an order Under Section 397(2) Cr.PC and as such this application Under Section 482 Cr.PC was not maintainable. Section 482 Cr.PC reserves the inherent power of the High Courts. This power is to be e...
Radha Kishan Bagla Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)354
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. - For the assessment year 1957-58, the Sales Tax Officer held that the petitioner Radha Kishan Bagla was also a partner in the firm Messrs. Yogesh Kumar & Sons. The same thing happened for the next assessment year 1958-59. The firm went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded. The question whether the petitioner Radha Kishan Bagla was or was not a partner in this firm was left open. The firm then went up in revision which failed. At the instance of the firm, a reference was made to this Court for both the years and the following question of law was referred :'Whether there was any material on record to support the findings of the Judge (Revisions) that Radha Kishan Bagla had a proprietary or partnership interest in the business run in the name of Yogesh Kumar & Sons ?'2. A Division Bench of this Court in a Judgment dated February 14, 1977, gave the following answer :'The material on record could only give rise to a rebuttable presumption...
Abdul Salam Vs. the Dy. Commr., Pratapgarh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All171
Sinha, J.1. This petition has been filed by Sri Abdul Salam praying that the order dated 8th July, 1971 and order dated 16th August, 1971 passed by the opposite party No. 1 be quashed.2. The petitioner held a licence for selling stamp in the Civil Court compound, Pratapgarh, since 1963. On 28th April, 1971, the Inspector of Stamp and Registration, made inspection of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pratapgarh and found that the petitioner had sold stamps worth Rs. 90/- to Shri Shital Prasad Singh for executing a gale-deed in favour of Shri Dwarika Singh in respect of some land. The numbers of these stamps, their denominations and date on which they were purported to have been sold were as follows :1. 132 Value 25/- Dated 26-9-1970 2. 133 Value 25/- Dated 27-9-1970 3. 134 Value 25/- Dated 28-9-1970 4. 135 Value 15/- Dated 29-9-1970 3. Similarly on 3-10-1970, the petitioner sold stamps worth Rs. 90/- again to Shri Shital Prasad Singh for executing another sale-deed in favour of Dwarik...
Smt. Shakuntala Devi Bhartiya Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR255(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. It appears that certain income-tax dues were in arrears against a HUF firm, Messrs. Naraindas Gopal Das. On 17th June, 1974, the TRO issued an order to Messrs. Kailash and Company under Rule 26(1)(iii) of the Second Schedule of the I.T. Act prohibiting it from receiving or delivering the balance of the loan account of the petitioner in the firm of Messrs. Kailash and Company. The petitioner filed objections dated 31st July, 1974, and March 25, 1975, objecting to the restraint order. The petitioner's case was that Messrs. Kailash and Company had no relation or interest in the HUF of Narain Das Gopal Das and that the petitioner was not liable to pay the dues recoverable from the HUF.2. We have perused the counter-affidavit and it is clear that the TRO did not apply his mind, much less dispose of the objections at all. The objection taken in the counter-affidavit that these objections were not headed under the appropriate provision of law does not carry any weight. Wh...
Mohammed Khalil Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT171(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 17th March, 1975 the Customs Officer visited the business premises of the petitioner and seized 6,350 Kg. of tin sheets purporting to exercise powers under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 110 provides that a notice under Section 124(a) must be issued within six months of the date of seizure otherwise the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. The notice has to inform the person of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose penalty. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 says that the aforesaid period of six months may on sufficient cause been shown be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months.2. In the present case on 12th September, 1975 the Collector of Customs issued a letter informing the petitioner that sufficient cause in the matter having been shown to him, he extended the period for the issue of show cause upto 10th N...
Mani Kant Tiwari Vs. Babu Ram Dixit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All144
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff filed claiming to be the landlord of the suit accommodation and the defendant's eviction was claimed from the said accommodation on the ground that the latter's tenancy in the same had been determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent due from him for the period from 1st July, 1958 to December, 1958, within a month of the notice of demand which was served on him on 21st January, 1959 and, therefore, he became a defaulter and the suit for eviction was, therefore, maintainable without the permission of the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the repealed U. P. Act III of 1947. The above mentioned notice was a composite notice which combined demand with the determination of the defendant's tenancy. The tenancy stood determined with effect from 28th February, 1959. Therefore, with effect from March ...
Umrao Industrial Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR30(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of a notice dated 29th March, 1975, issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, proposing to reopen the assessment of the petitioner-company for the year 1970-71. The principal ground of attack was that the ITO had no reason to believe that any part of the income of the petitioner-company had escaped assessment or that there was any failure in submitting true particulars thereof, and hence had no jurisdiction to issue the notice.2. In the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that while conducting the assessment proceedings for the subsequent year 1972-73, the ITO discovered that personal and household expenses of the directors and their relations were debited to the stores account, basa kharch account, and travelling expenses account of the company. These had escaped notice when the assessment proceedings for the year in question were completed. Thus, the petitioner-company failed to disclose full and true particulars o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »