Allahabad Court February 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Cold Storage.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)189
Satish Chandra, J. - The Tribunal has, for the Assessment Year 1964-65 referred the following question of law for our opinion at the instance of the Commissioner :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company was an industrial company engaged in processing of goods within the meaning of clause III(a) of the proviso to paragraph D of part III of the First Schedule to Finance Act, 1964 and thereby entitled to concessional rate of taxation'.The Assessee, in the present case, is Messrs. Bharat Cold Storage, Farrukhabad. The Tribunal held that the Assessee was an industrial company referred to in the provisions. For this it relied upon for-earlier decision in respect of the Farrukhabad Cold Storage. The decision of the Tribunal in Farrukhabad Cold Storage case came up to this Court by way of a reference which is reported in The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Kanpur vs. Messrs. Farrukhabad Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Farrukhabad. This court up held the v...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jagat Singh Jajja Ram.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)232
R. R. Rastogi, J. - The assessee, M/s. Jagat Singh Lajja Ram, carries on the business of manufacture and sale of Khandsari sugar. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee disclosed sales of sugar at Rs. 2,74,201/- which had been made through commission agents and of molasses at Rs. 6,712/-, which he had made on his own. Central Excise Duty had been paid on the sugar manufactured by the assessee and hence there being no liability for tax on the sales thereof, it was claimed that the turnover was below the minimum taxable limit. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer did not accept that contention. He estimated the sales of molasses at Rs. 28,000/- and for determining the gross turnover included the sales of sugar as well. Tax was, however, imposed on sales of molasses only.2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and it was contended that sugar sold through commission agents should not have been included in the gross turnover and that the estimate o...
Syed Zakir HusaIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1002
ORDERMahavir Singh, J.1. This is a revision by the applicant parties under Section 145, Cr. P.C. proceedings against an order of the Additional City Magistrate dated 20-5-1976 ordering the return of the possession of the property in question to the opposite party No. 1 who is respondent No. 2 in the present revision.2. The relevant facts are that the Magistrate had initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. about the property described in that case in view of the apprehension of breach of peace about the possession of the same between the two parties. Thereafter on 15-3-75 he further passed an order under Section 146, Cr. P.C. attaching the property in question because of immediate apprehension of breach of peace. The property was actually attached on 16-3-75 Thereafter in pursuance of the order dated 15-3-75 requiring the parties to file documents and affidavits in support of their respective contentions, the parties filed papers and affidavits and on the consideration of the s...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Patel Ram Bhai Amba Lal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)229
R. R. Rastogi, J. - The assessee is a dealer in food grains etc. He also acts as a commission agent. In 1963-64, it was found that the assessee had supplied Gur worth Rs. 30,659,81 to two dealers of Gujarat and that Gur he had purchased from Hathras. The assessees case was that Gujarat dealers had come to Agra personally and had placed verbal orders with him and hence purchase orders for that supply were not available. He filed confirmatory letters from the Gujarats parties affirming the aforesaid transactions. The Sales Tax Officer did not believe the case of the assessee on the ground that there were no written orders from the alleged principles. He held the transactions to be inter-state sales and levied sales tax accordingly. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner (J) accepted the contention of the assessee and held that the aforesaid transactions which were duly entered in the account books were purchasing commission agency transactions.8. Being aggrieved the State came up in revisi...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Waqf K.B. Syed Ahmad HussaIn Rizvi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR344(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The question of law referred by the Tribunal for our opinion relates to the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant valuation date for which was March 31, 1968.2. Khan Bahadur Syed Ahmad Hussain Rizvi executed a deed of waqf-alal-aulad and for charitable purposes on January 31, 1940. It was aregistered document to which, two supplementary instruments were executed on November 30, 1947, and February 1, 1950. Till 1950, the waqif was the sole mutawalli. Thereafter, his wife became the mutawalli. The settlor died in 1955 and his wife in 1966. One Syed Hamid Hussain Aslam Rizvi was elected mutawalli thereafter. In the wealth-tax proceedings, the WTO sought to include the entire value of the waqf properties in the assessment of the waqf. This was objected to by the assessee. Ultimately, the matter went to the Tribunal.3. On an interpretation of the waqf deed, the Tribunal held that it provided for distribution of 80% of the income to the heirs of the waqif, the rest 20% ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sidh Gopal Gajanand.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)108
Satish Chandra, J. - Firm Sidh Gopal Gajanand was, on 21st January, 1954, assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1949-50 in the status of a registered firm. On 16th March, 1966, the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under S. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that -'Part of the cloth manufactured by India United Mills Ltd. Bombay, during the accounting year (the decontrol period) was sold through Messrs Sidhopal Gajanand which has a branch in the name of Ganga Textiles at Kanpur. This is an association of persons and has earned about Rs. 80 lacs from this cloth business during the decontrol period. I have a reason to believe that this income of Rs. 80 lacs has escaped assessment on account of assessees failure to file a return under S. 22(1)'.2. Ultimately the matter went up to the Tribunal. It, inter alia, held that the Department has failed to prove by cogent evidence that this association of persons had earned any on-money. There...
Makki Mian Vs. Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)213
Satish Chandra, J. - Haji Inayat Hussain had died on 8th February, 1962. His son Makki Mian filed a return of the estate of the deceased. The Assistant Controller passed an ex parte assessment order on 23rd February, 1963 computing the principal value of the estate at Rs. 301,500/-. The accountable person appealed and succeeded. The initial order was set aside and the Assistant Controller was directed to make a fresh assessment. On remand the Assistant Controller passed a fresh order dated 4th March, 1967 computing the principal value of the estate at Rs. 3,55,000/-. The accountable person again went up in appeal. The Appellate Controller confirmed the finding that because of the defaults of the accountable person the Assistant Controller was entitled to pass an ex parte assessment order. The other point pressed before him related to Chand Building. The accountable person asserted that this building had been gifted to his deceased wife more than two years prior to his death, and so, th...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tikhan Lal Mela Ram.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)227
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The question referred is concluded by two decisions of this Court in M/s. Punjab Coal Store, Meerut vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Amar Nath. We accordingly answer the question by saying that charcoal is included in the term coal. The Department is entitled to costs which is assessed at Rs. 100/- and counsel fee also at the same figure....
Gajanand Sutwala Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)205
B. N. Sapru, J. - The following question of law has been referred to this Court for opinion :'Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the finding that Smt. Gangotri Devi was benamidar for her husband in the firm Bhojanagarwala and Brothers ?'2. There was a firm stayed as M/s. Bhojanagarwala and Brothers, in which there were two partners, viz., Sri Hiralal and Smt. Gangotri Devi, wife of Sri Gajanand. It was claimed on behalf of the assessee that Smt. Gangotri Devi was a partner in the said firm in her own right and not a benamidar on behalf of the assessee. This claim was rejected by the Department for a number of years. In the assessment year 1961-62 it was again claimed that Smt. Gangotri Devi was a partner in the firm in her own right. This claim was rejected in computing the net wealth of the assessee. The Wealth Tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 89,512/- as the assessees interest shown in the name of his wife Smt. Gangotri De...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bansilal Bhasin.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)228
C. S. P. Singh, J. - This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The question referred is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ilaichidana sold by the assessee firm would be liable to tax under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?'.2. M/s. Bansi Lal Bhasin carried on the business of sale of Ilaichidana. It disclosed a turnover of Rs. 48,321/-which was enhanced to Rs. 55,000/- by the Sale Tax Officer. It was contended by the dealer before the Sales Tax Officer that Ilaichidana was not taxable, as it was nothing but sugar. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that although Ilaichidana was manufactured from sugar, its form was changed and it became a different commodity. On appeal, the turnover returned by the assessee was accepted, but the contention that Ilaichidana was sugar was repelled. The Revising Authority, however, held on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat vs. Shakk...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »