Allahabad Court March 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.
Nagar Mahapalika Vs. A.V. Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1467
ORDERMohd. Hamid Hussain, J.1. These are 13 connected appeals filed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, against the order of the Magistrate dated 15-5-1973 dismissing the complaints filed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, against the Managers of the 13 cinema houses in Varanasi, under Sections 298 and 299 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and Section 577 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 as not maintainable and discharging the opposite parties.2. In all the aforesaid 13 cases giving rise to these 13 appeals the complaint by the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi was that the cinema houses run by the opposite parties were producing loud sound by using sound amplifying instruments and other electrical gadgets without obtaining the permission of the Nagar Mahapalika. Against this complaint preliminary objections were raised by the respective operators of the aforesaid 13 cinema houses to the effect that they were exhibiting the cinema films inside the auditorium after having obtai...
Bhagwat Saran Goel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR971(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. On 10th January, 1965, one Ramesh Chand entered into a partnership with three other persons. This partnership was to carry on the business of distributing a film called 'Haqiqet'. The share of Ramesh Chand in this firm was 40%. He was liable to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. He actually contributed Rs. 75,000. He did not have the balance. So, he borrowed Rs. 25,000 from B. S. Goyal, the assessee in the present case. Only eighteen days later, namely, on 28th January, 1965, Ramesh Chand and the assessee entered into an arrangement under a written document, which is called a deed of sub-partnership. It began by saying that 'the assessee was insistent upon getting his money back for the sake of better investment.....' This statement comes in the partnership deed only after eighteen days of the money being lent to Ramesh Chand. The sub-partnership consisted of only two partners, namely, Ramesh Chand and the assessee. This sub-partnership was only in respect of the s...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mardan Khan Rafiq Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR559(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessec, Messrs. Mardan Khan Rafiq Ahmad, is a partnership firm consisting of Mardan Khan and his son, Rafiq Abmad. The firm consisting of the aforesaid two persons started the business from January 1, 1963. Subsequently, an instrument of partnership was executed on June 25, 1963. The shares of the partners in the profits and losses were mentioned in the ratio of 10 annas and 6 annas. It, however, appears that in the books of accounts as well as in the returns, the partners distributed the profits in the ratio of 8 annas each. The ITO held that as the profits were not distributed in accordance with the shares mentioned in the partnership deed, the firm was not a genuine one. Accordingly, he heldthat the assessee was not entitled to the benefits of registration as a firm. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the AAC, The AAC also found that the partnership was not entered into with the i...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)347
K. C. Agarwal, J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under S. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for the opinion of this Court :-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under S. 214 was payable to the assessee on the entire amount of advance tax paid viz. Rs. 38,162/- ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to any further interest u/s. 214 on excess tax deducted at source in addition to the interest payable on the advance tax of Rs. 38,162/- ?2. The assessee filed a return showing a gross income. On the amount of the gross income the tax determined was at Rs. 49,075/-. It, however, appears that Rs. 92,929/- had been deducted towards the tax at source. Over and above this amount of Rs. 92,929/- the assessee paid Rs. 38,162/-by way of advance tax. After the determinatio...
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)188
1. JUDGMENT : K. C. Agrawal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notices dated 31st March, 1976 and 6th September, 1976 issued by the Income-tax Officer A Ward, Varanasi and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents from taking any proceeding in pursuance of the notices mentioned above. These notices had been issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). 2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. Messrs. Renusagar Power Company Limited, the petitioner is a subsidiary company of Messrs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukoot, Mirzapur. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of generation and supply of power. For the assessment year 1972-73, the corresponding financial year of which is from 1st January, 1971 to 31st December, 1971, the petitioner filed its returns of income. By an order of assessment dated March 22, 1975 the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner co...
Vikram Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1335
G.D. Srivastava, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Appeal No. 953 of 1977 has been filed by Vikram Singh and the other appeal is by Dharampal. Appellant Vikram Singh has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C, simpliciter and has been sentenced to death. He has also been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years under the first count and rigorous imprisonment for four years under the second count. These two sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Dharampal has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also under Section 307 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under the first count and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the second count. The two sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. There is the us...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Jamna Devi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)206
Satish Chandra, J. - The questions of law referred for our opinion are :-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the quantum of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) had to be fixed in this case with reference to the provisions prior to its amendment w.e.f. 1.4.68 even though the return of income was filed on 9.10.69 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in reducing the quantum of penalty under S. 271(1)(c) from Rs. 10,000/- to 20% of the tax sought to be evaded if the assessees returned income had been accepted as correct income ?2. As the question mentions it, the penalty was imposable under clause (c) of S. 271(1) of the Act namely for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars. In Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Dataram Satpal, this Court has held that the law applicable to the imposition of penalty would be the law which was prevalent on the date of the ...
Triloki Nath Vs. Kanhiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All297
ORDERAmitav Banerji, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Agra, dated 11th October, 1976. The opposite parties had moved an application 36C stating that the Court of District Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for the grant of letters of administration. The prayer was that until this point of jurisdiction was decided, the filing of the written statement by the opposite parties may be deferred. The learned District Judge by his aforesaid order rejected the application. The present revision has been filed against the above order.2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that unless there was a notification in the official gazette by the State Government as contemplated under Section 264(2) of the Indian Succession Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the District Judge had no jurisdiction for granting letters of administration with the Will annexed. He urged that the opposite parties had not 'been able to show the exi...
Singh Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR891(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. Messrs. Singh Engineering Works, hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee ', manufactures iron bars and rods out of ingots manufactured from scrap in its own electric furnace and billets purchased from Hindustan Steel Ltd., Iron and Steel Company and Indian Iron and Steel Company. In its assessments to income-tax for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act', on its total manufacture. The ITO, on the other hand, allowed relief on the proportionate turnover of iron bars and rods out of ingots manufactured by the assessee itself and not on the turnover of iron bars and rods out of billets purchased by the assessee. 2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed revision application under Section 264 of the Act before the CIT, Kanpur-I. The learned CIT by a combined order dated July 3, 1976, upheld the view taken by the ITO. Essentially, he relied upon the asses...
Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR1(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 18th May, 1977, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 273A(i)(ii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in sarafa and money-lending. It was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1964-65. It, however, did not file returns in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 returns were filed on 25th March, 1970, and 6th March, 1971, respectively. It appears that while dealing with the case of the year 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer concerned considered it necessary to verify the correctness and completeness of the returns filed by the petitioner. Hence, a notice was issued on February 8, 1971, under Section 143(2) of the Act requiring the presence o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »