Allahabad Court October 1978 Judgments
E. Hill and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)52; [1980]122ITR630(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. While hearing the appeal filed by the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the AAC found that the ITO had allowed entertainment expenses in excess of the statutory limit of Rs. 5,000. He further noticed that entertainment expenses were debited not only under the head 'Entertainment expenses account' but in other accounts as well. He sent a note to the ITO to check up the position with respect to the assessment year 1966-67 and to take appropriate action for disallowing the excess. Thereupon, the ITO issued notice seeking to reopen the assessment under section 147(b) of the I.T, Act. After hearing the assessee, he held that the assessee had been allowed Rs. 6,514 by way of entertainment expenses which was'in excess of the limit of Rs. 5,000 by Rs. 1,514. This sum of Rs. 1,514 was hence disallowed. As the assessment had been reopened, the ITO looked into other matters and made additions of disallowance under other heads also.2. The assessee appealed...
Tag this Judgment!intesco Raw Silk Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(All)235; [1979]117ITR315(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law for our consideration is whether retrenchment compensation paid by a business firm on the closure of its business is an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal upheld the case of the revenue and repelled the claim of the assessee.2. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation : [1967]65ITR643(SC) , held that retrenchment compensation paid to an employee by the person to whom the business was transferred was not properly admissible as a deduction because the liability to pay retrenchment compensation arises for the first time on closure of the business and not before. It does not arise in the carrying on of the business but on account of its transfer. During the entire period that the business was continued, there was no liability to pay retrenchment compensation. The liability which arose on transfer of the business was not of a revenure nature and hence was not deductible under Section 10. Further, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Excise Inspector-in-charge an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT7(All)
N.D. Ojha J.1. Identical questions are involved in these two writ petitions and as such they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Auctions for wholesale vendor of FL 2 licenses for the area of Ghaziabad as also for Lucknow were held sometime in March, 1978. The petitioner No. 1 in writ petition No. 8450 of 1978 was the highest bidder in respect of the auction for Lucknow. Likewise petitioner No. 1 in writ petition No. 8455 of 1978 Was the highest bidder in respect of the auction for Ghaziabad. At the time when the auction was held and even during the period between 1st of April 1978, and 16th of April, 1978, the rate of excise duty was fixed at Rs. 40/- per litre of alcohol. In exercise of the powers under Sections 28 and 29 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, the State Government issued Notification No. 3514-E/XIII-331-78, dated April 17, 1978, whereby the rate of Excise duty was enhanced from Rs. 40/- per litre of alcohol. This notification was published in the U.P. Gazette, Extraor...
Tag this Judgment!Subas Rai Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ225
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The police submitted a report on 3rd March, 1978 for taking action under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate took cognizance on 14th March 1978 and directed notice to issue to the opposite parties for appearance on 28th March, 1978. When the opposite parties put their appearance on the said date, title order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. was read out to them. Thereafter the case was fixed on several 'dates, but it was adjourned for some reason or the other. On 19th September, 1978 an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor for extension of time. No orders were passed on this application. After the expiry of six months, it appears that the opposite parties applied to the Magistrate concerned pleading that in view of the provisions of Section 116(6) Cr.P.C. the inquiry had not been completed within six months and as such the proceedings should be dropped. Thereafter on 29th September, 1978 the Magistrate passed the impugned order condoning the delay and direc...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasita Vs. Smt. Brahma Wati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All299
ORDERA. Banerji, J. 1. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant : Firstly, that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow a revision against an order passed under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Civil P. C. and, secondly, that even on the merits the order was without jurisdiction, as the Court below misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and thereby erroneously set aside the order of the execution Court. 2. To appreciate the contentions, it will be relevant to set down a few facts, Smt. Brahma Wati filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,090/- and for possession over two shops. This suit was filed against one Om Prakash. The suit was decreed on the 29th Sept., 1969 and the appeal filed by Om Prakash was dis-missd by the District Judge, Bijnor, by his order dated 22nd Oct., 1970. The decree was put in execution and Smt. Brahma Wati got possession over the property in question. The present applicant, Ghasita moved an application und...
Tag this Judgment!Security Printers of India P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas690(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Security Printers of India Private Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, respondent No. 1, dated September 21, 1976, requiring the petitioner to take steps to get itself registered under Section 26 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), failing which penal action would be taken under the Act.2. There is not much dispute on the facts of the case and briefly stated they are that the petitioner having its registered office at Kanpur carries on the business of printing special documents of security nature, such as cheques. This business is also being carried on at Kanpur. Prior to 28th of August, 1974, 51 per cent. of its equity shares were held by W, W. Sprague and Company Ltd. (W.W.S. Ltd.) which is a 100 per cent. subsidiary of Metal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. London Machinery Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)301; [1979]117ITR111(All); [1979]1TAXMAN24(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee is a registered firm, consisting of seven partners. According to the partnership deed, three of them, to wit C.L. Barry, I.L. Berry and P. K. Berry, were stated to be partners acting as kartas of their respective Hindu undivided families (HUF for short). The HUFs contributed capital, but the partnership deed provided that no interest shall be paid on it unless the partners agreed otherwise. The other four partners entered the firm in their individual capacities.2. The three karta-partners deposited funds belonging to each of them in their individual capacity in the accounts of the firm. The firm paid to each of them interest amounting to a total of Rs. 20,996 as individuals. The firm claimed deduction of this amount as business expenditure. The ITO disallowed it. This disallowance was upheld on appeal.3. The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the matter elaborately,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kapur Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR741(All); [1979]1TAXMAN25(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. While making assessment of M/s. Kapoor Brothers, the assessee, the ITO found that a deposit of Rs. 2,015 was enteredin the assessee's account books in the name of each of its five partners. The deposits were entered as on 20th October, 1966. The accounting period for the assessment year 1967-68 ended on 11th November, 1968. He called upon the assessee, a partnership firm, to explain the sources of these deposits. The firm put forward the explanation that these amounts represented the sale proceeds of certain assets belonging, to the partners. Since no evidence was produced, the same was rejected. The ITO added these amounts as the income of the partnership firm. 2. The firm appealed. Before the AAC, it put forward a different explanation that tbe deposits represented sale proceeds of Banarsi sarees sold by the partners. This explanation was also found not believable and was rejected. The addition was upheld. 3. The assessee went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brij Raman Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)50; [1979]118ITR397(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Messrs. Purshottam Das Rais, Gorakhpur, was a registered partnership firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, it derived income from interest. The income from interest accrued because the firm made fixed deposits with certain banks or in savings bank accounts. In due course, the firm was assessed and the share of each partner allocated. The assessee, in the present case, is one of the partners. He claimed relief under Section 80L of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the interest income. This claim was repelled by the ITO but was accepted on appeal. The revenue went up in appeal to the Tribunal but failed. The claim of the assessee was upheld by the Tribunal.2. At the instance of the CIT, the Tribunal has referred, for our opinion, the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was allowable to the assessee in respect of th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bitola Kuer Vs. Sri Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All555
S.J. Hyder, J.1. The plaintiff who has lost from both the courts below has now filed this second appeal.2. The suit was for possession over the house in dispute. It is not necessary to burden this judgment by repeating the averments made in the pleadings of the parties. The two courts below have found as a fact that the house in dispute, which is situated in village Hardaspur in the district of Budaun belonged to one Malkhan Singh. He had a son named Surat Singh. Surat Singh married three wives--one after the other. His first wife was Jamuna Kuer from whom he had a daughter named Larh Kuer alias Lalsukh. Plaintiff Bitola Kuer is the daughter of Larh Kuer. The second wife of Surat Singh was Deva Kuer. He had no issue from the second wife. The third wife of Surat Singh was Ram Piari. Ram Piari was also issueless. When Surat Singh died, only Deva Kuer and Ram Piari were alive and they entered in possession of his extensive property as the widows of the last male owner. Relations between D...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »