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.
Smt. Safi Devi Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All215
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed against five defendants. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in the instant appeal. The defendant No. 5 Smt. Safi Devi, is the appellant before me. The plaintiff sought the recovery of possession of house No. 77, Muthiganj, Allahabad. A decree for mesne profits @ Re. 1/- per day with effect from June 10, 1968 to the date of suit amounting to Rs. 50/- and pendente lite and future mesne profits at the same rate until the delivery of possession were also claimed. Further, the plaintiff claimed rent from the tenant defendant No. 4 Jagannath, @ Rs. 12/- per month from June 10, 1968 to the date of suit amounting to Rs. 20/- and pendente lite and future rent.2. The brief facts are these : A sale deed was executed on June 10, 1968 by the defendant No. 1, Kartik Prasad acting for himself and as the father and guardian of his minor son, Bhanu, defendant...
Mohammad Ali Khan Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow Na ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All280
Hari Swarup, J. 1. This petition has been filed to challenge the validity of the AliganJ Street and CityExpansion Scheme, an Improvement Scheme framed under the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and subsequently adopted by the Lucknow Development Authority constituted under U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The petitioner has challenged the validity of acquisition on various grounds. Some of the grounds raised by the learned counsel were the same which were considered by us in Writ Petn. No. 137 of 1974 (Mahabir Singh Kotwal v. Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika) and Writ Petn, No. 973 of 1973 (Jhau Lal v. Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow) reported in AIR 1977 All 504. The learned counsel has adopted the arguments which had been raised in those two petitions and in view of our judgments has not taken us over again through those grounds. Our judgment in respect of those grounds is the same as given in earlier judgments. 2. The petitioner has raised two adtional gro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hari Ram Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR886(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The assessee-firm originally carried on business in the status of a HUF. On October 18, 1960, a partial partition took place between the coparceners. The business conducted by the HUF was taken over by a firm consisting of Hari Ram Khanna and his two sons, Tilak Raj and Sudarshan Kumar. The firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated October 19, 1960. It disclosed that the share of Hari Ram was six annas and those of his two sons five annas each. The claim of partial partition was accepted by the ITO by an order dated August 18, 1966. For the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee-firm was granted registration. Subsequently, the CIT passed an order under Section 263 setting aside the assessment of the firm in the status of a partnership firm and directed the ITO to make the assessment afresh. The Commissioner found that though the application for registration was made in the proper form ...
Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR928(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following twoquestions for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 2,95,394 and Rs. 1,38,098 being penalty on cess and purchase-tax were not allowable expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 75,963 incurred in connection with the issue of additional equity shareswas not an allowable expenditure in the facts and circumstances of the case for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively ?' 2. The amounts covered by the first question were paid as penalty for the delay made by the assessee in the payment of sugarcane cess and purchase-tax. In Mahabir Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1969]71ITR87(All) a Division Bench of this court dealt precisely with the same question. It held that penalty payable under Section 3(5) of the Sugarcane Cess ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow Vs. Radha Kishan Banwarilal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR970(All)
SATISH CHANDRA J. - Messrs. Radha Kishan Banwari Lal carried on business in the status of a partnership firm. This firm was originally registered under s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act. 1922, for the assessment year 1952-53 by an order of the ITO dated September 8, 1952. Since then the firm was granted renewal of registration every year till 1961-62. For the assessment year 1962-63, when the I.T. Act, 1961, came into force, the registration of this firm was continued on the basis of declaration filed by it under s. 184(7) of the Act. For the year 1963-64, which is the year now in question, the firm filed the usual declaration of June 28, 1963. The firm filed its return of income on July 23, 1963. The ITO found everything in order and recognized the continued registration of this firm. During the assessment proceedings, the ITO found that the firm was not producing its books of account. He, ultimately, passed an order to the best of his judgment under s. 144 of the Act. He, however, passed...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.K. Purwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR908(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. This reference relates to assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-1971, the relevant previous years being the financial years. 2. Sri V. K. Purwar, the assessee, was in service in the firm of Messrs. Govind Ram Gajadhar Lal. There was a partition in this firm in OctoberNovember, 1966, whereafter this firm was converted into a partnershipfirm. Sri V. K. Purwar became a partner. The share income received bySri V. K. Purwar from the partnership firm, Messrs. Govind Ram GajadharLal, is the subject-matter of dispute in this reference. 3. The assessee claimed that he became a partner in his capacity as karta of his own HUF consisting of himself, his wife and daughter. The ITO, however, repelled this claim, and brought the share income to assessment in his individual capacity. This happened for the assessment year 1966-67. For the two subsequent years, namely, 1967-68 and 1968-69, also the ITO maintained the same position. The share income from this firm was assessed in the ha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR728(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. Messrs, Cosmopolitan Trading Co., the assessee, derives its income from the sale of cloth and money-lending business. On March 25, 1960, it advanced a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to Messrs. New Bhopal Textile Co. Ltd., on an interest of 7% per annum besides commission at the rate of 1/2% per annum. It was agreed that the interest and commission will be receivable by the assessee every quarter. The company adopted the mercantile system of accounting. Up to the assessment year 1963-64, the interest receivable from the debtor-company was shown in the assessee's books on mercantile basis.2. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee did not show the receipt of any interest and commission on the footing that it had not received interest or commission even in the year 1962, much less during the period of accounting which was October 26, 1962, to November 14, 1963. The assessee took up the case that for purposes of this transaction of loan it adopted cash system of accounting f...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Veena Devi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)42
Satish Chandra, J. - The Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was competent to entertain and decide the question with regard to vires of rule 1-D of the Wealth Tax Rules.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the view taken by the Tribunal that rule 1-D of the Wealth tax Rules, instead of serving the purpose of the Act, puts a severe curb on it, particularly on the provisions contained in S. 7(1) and 24(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, and hence it is ultra vires of these sections, is correct in law.3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that rules 1-C and 1-D introduced by the Wealth Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1967, by the notification dated 6-10-1967 do not have any retrospective effect and could not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›