Allahabad Court February 1978 Judgments
Abdul Wasey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All247
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff filed claiming a declaration that the amount of Rs. 409.44 deposited by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in tehsil Amroha as land revenue payable by them was not really land revenue so payable by them and hence the said sum was liable to be attached in the execution of the decrees in suits Nos. 39 of 1954 and 27 of 1958 passed by the court of Munsif. Amroha. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that he was the bhumidhar of the plots detailed at the foot of the plaint and had been paying land revenue in respect of the same regularly. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 wrongly deposited the amount in question i. e. a sum of Rs. 409.44 in the tehsil as land revenue in respect of the said plots. The said defendants were not the tenure-holders of the said plots and had no obligation to pay any land revenue in respect of the said land which had been in the possession of the plaintiff and of which he was the tenure-holder....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR23(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 20,40,721 on account of provision for taxation and Rs. 19,66,853 on account of proposed dividend were to be included in the computation of capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963?'2. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64 ended on April 30, 1962. The balance-sheet of the assessee-company was prepared as on that date. It included under the head 'Current Liabilities & Provisions' Rs. 20,40,721 as provision for taxation and Rs. 19,66,853 for 'proposed dividends'. The assessee claimed that these two sums should be treated as 'reserves' for purpose of computation of capital as provided under Rule 1 of the Second Schedule of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. The Super Profits Tax Officer repelled this submission as he was of the view that provision for tax...
Tag this Judgment!Algoo Ram Pradhan and anr. Vs. Tejai Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ786
ORDERP.N. Goel, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482, Cr.PC2. On 15-7-1974 Tejai Ram, opposite party No. 1, filed a complaint against Algoo Ram and Kedar applicants Under Section 379 IPC before the Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara, within Police Station Tharwai, district Allahabad. In Oct., 1974 there took place election in the village for the offices of the Pradhan and Sadasya Gaon Sabha. Algoo Ram applicant No. 1 was elected Pradhan. Kedar was elected Sadasya. On 25-11-1974 the Nyaya Panchayat found Algoo Ram and Kedar guilty of the offence Under Section 379, IPC and convicted them. Algoo Ram and Kedar filed a revision Under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided the revision on 15-10-1975, set aside the order of conviction passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, Sikandara and remanded the case to the said Nyaya Panchayat for deciding the case again. Thereafter Algoo Ram moved an application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Azad Ahmad (In Jail) Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1154
ORDERMufti, J.1. The petitioner, Azad Ahmed was tried in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The charge against him was that, on 12-4-1974, he had exposed for sale milk, consisting of cow's milk and buffalo's milk mixed together in equal proportion, which, on analysis, did not conform to the prescribed standard and was adulterated. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the milk sold contained 4.1% fatty solids and 7.4% non-fatty solids, compared to 4.5% fatty solids and 8.5% non-fatty solids prescribed for mixed milk. Accordingly, he convicted the applicant of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I, for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for ten months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, took the view that the standards prescribed for ...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ634
ORDERV.N. Varma, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 17-6-77 passed by Sessions Judge Deoria in a case Under Section 392 IPC2. In the year 1974 Ragghu Ram P. W, 1 was the Munim of the Firm M/s. Mani Ram Rampat Ram. On 11-3-74, at about 8-30 P.M., he had been returning to his Firm after realizing Rs. 12,000 as dues of the Firm from various shopkeepers. It is said that when he reached in front of Green Medical Hall on Arjun Road in the town of Deoria, two persons intercepted him. One of them caught him from the back and the other snatched his bag containing the said sum of Rs. 12,000/-. He raised an alarm whereupon Babu Ram P. W. 2, Vikram P. W. 3, Shiv Shanker, Durgeshwar Pande and several others arrived. They saw the miscreants in the electric light of the street pole, but they could not apprehend them. Ragghu Ram went to the shop of the Firm and got a report of the incident written out by one Basi Lai. Armed with that report, he went to P. S. Kotwali and lodged it th...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Etawah District Exhibition and Ca ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)166
Satish Chandra, J. - Messrs Etawah District Exhibition and Cattle Fair Association, the assessee, was taxed in the status of an association of persons. For the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 it claimed that its income was exempt from tax under S. 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer repelled this submission and brought the entire income to tax. The assessee appealed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that -(a) in order to be entitled for an association to exemption from income tax, it is not necessary that it should be a registered body;(b) the assessee owned income-yielding properties. Its entire organisation and undertaking also constituted property;(c) some of the objects were undoubtedly charitable but some were covered by the clause 'object of general public utility' occurring in S. 2(15) of the Act.Since the business of the association involved carrying on of an activity for profit it was not held to be a charitable trust under S. 11...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Kant Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)323
K. C. Agrawal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of certiorari quashing the notice u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 28th July 1975 issued by the Income-tax Officer, Award Circle 2 Varanasi and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the same.2. Laxmi Kant Gupta was a member of a Hindu Undivided Family. For the assessment year 1973-74 ending on 31st March, 1973, the petitioner filed a return. During the assessment year in question the assessee sold house No. 62 Baratalla Street, Calcutta-7 by two sale-deeds dated 29th September, 1972 for Rs. 40,000/- each to one Shrimati Taradevi Chaurasiya wife of Kamla Prasad Chaurasiya. In return, the petitioner claimed that as the value of the property was assessed under Wealth-Tax Act at Rs. 1,26,000/- and since the same was sold only for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- the petitioner suffered a capital loss of Rs. 40,000/- from the sale of this hous...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sant Baba Mohan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR1015(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the CIT, U.P., Kanpur. The question referred for our opinion is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from Gurudwara and attached shops was entitled to exemption under Section 4(3)(i)/4(3)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1961-62, and under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 ?' 2. In response to a notice issued by the ITO under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, Sant Baba Mohan Singh, the assessee, stated before the ITO that he had renounced the world at the age of 14 years and was a sanyasi. He was looking after the management of the Gurudwara Kirtan Ghar, Gomti No. 5, Kanpur, as shebait or manager and that the income made by the said Gurudwara was not his personal...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Tiwari Vs. Ram Lal Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All197
K.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Ghazipur dated 20th April, 1961 in Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1960 Raja Tewari v. Ram Lal Tewari and others, whereby the judgment of the trial court in suit No. 62 of 1959 Raja Tewari, Plaintiff v. Ram Lal Tewari and others, Defendants stands confirmed.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff alleged to be sirdar in possession of the disputed plots Nos. 1050 and 1051. He alleged that in plot No. 1050 a Mahuwa tree had been planted by his great grand-father with the permission of the Zamindar and he continued in possession over the same all along, and that the defendants or their ancestors had no concern with the tree and they wrongly threatened to use the usufruct of the tree. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants had filed a case against the uncle and brother of the plaintiff in the Panchayat Adalat and it was unlawfully decided by the Panchaya...
Tag this Judgment!Shareef Ahmad Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR35(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the CWT dated 6th March, 1975, passed under Section 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is an individual assessee. He filed the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 on February 28, 1973. According to the case of the petitioner, although he was being assessed under the I.T. Act for a very long time, as he was bona fide under the belief that his wealth was below the taxable limit, he did not submit the return of the wealth-tax of the aforesaid years. The assessments for the aforesaid years were by four different orders made on the same date, i.e., 4th August, 1973. While determining the market value of the machinery held by the firm, M/s. Sayeed Bhai and Company, the WTO added 10 per cent. over the book written down value by way of appreciation in the value of assets. This resulted in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »