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.
Paras Bhan Sadh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR834(All)
K. C. Agrawal, J.1. Paras Bhan Sadh was carrying on business at Farrukhabad. He was assessed to tax since the assessment year 1957-58 on estimated income as he was representing to the department that he did not maintain regular books of account. After the petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 1971-72, the file of the petitioner's case was examined by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on August 17, 1972. After examination of the case, he directed the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment for the year 1971-72 under Section 143(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act and to ask the petitioner to submit the net wealth statement. Pursuant, to the aforesaid order, the Income-tax Officer on September 12, 1972, called upon the petitioner to file the list of debtors, creditors along with the personal net wealth statement. The petitioner was also required to give basis of sales and purchases made by him. Thereafter, on October 20, 1972, a notice under Section 143(2) of the ...
Smt. Gurbachan Kaur Vs. Sardar Swaran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All255
J.M.L. Sinha, J.1. This is a defendant'ssecond appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13th October, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehra Dun.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal can briefly be stated as under ;Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and Sardar Swaran Singh, 'hereinafter called the appellant and the respondent respectively, were married on 2nd of October, 1973. Some differences having arisen between them, the respondent filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a declaration that his marriage with the appellant was null and void. It was alleged in the plaint that on 14th of October, 1973, when the appellant was found profusely bleeding from her private part, she was shown to a lady doctor and it was then discovered that the appellant was already having pregnancy with a treat of miscarriage. On being questioned the appellant confessed that she was quick with child and had taken medicine to get rid of the pre-gancy. The respondent, it is alleg...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR850(All)
Satish Chandra J.1. The assessee is a co-operative society. Its funds have been invested mainly in Government securities. Its funds include the funds of the provident fund accounts of its employees. A portion of this provident fund was invested by the assessee in Government securities. The assessee earned interest income by this investment. For the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61, it claimed deduction from its 'income from interest' of the amount of interest payable by it to its employees on the balance of their provident fund accounts. This claim was accepted by the Income-tax Officer.2. For the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66, the same claim was, however, repelled by the Income-tax Officer. He held that the assessee-co-operative society could not be said to have borrowed any money so as to claim deduction under Section 19(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. On this view, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments for the previous years 1957-58 to 1960-61 and, after hearin...
U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)259
Satish Chandra, J. - These nine applications involve the question whether the assessee was exempt from tax under S. 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it was an educational institution. For some years this plea was not taken initially before the Income-tax Officer while in other years it was repelled by him. In appeal also the plea failed although the assessee succeeded on another question viz, whether in respect of its income on securities the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest paid on borrowed money. The matter went up to the Tribunal by way of an appeal in respect of the question of allowable deduction from the interest on securities-income while the question of exemption under S. 10(22) was taken up in the cross-objection filed by the assessee.2. The assessee did not file any application for reference under S. 256(1) of the Act in respect of the question relating to exemption under S. 10(22) of the Act. The Department, however, asked for reference on...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nathimal Badri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR409(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The question of law raised in this reference is whether expenses incurred by an assessee in purchasing its raw material for stock-in-trade for carrying on the manufactaring or trading business is covered within the meaning of the expression 'expenditure' occurring in Section 40A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that they were outside the purview of this expression and hence Section 40A was not applicable with the result that the amount of such purchases could hot be added back.2. This court in U.P. Hardware Store v. CIT : [1976]104ITR664(All) has taken a different view.' It was held that there was no justification for accepting the plea that the words 'expenditure' used in Section 40A(3) should be restricted to overhead expenses enumerated under Sections 30 to 43A of the Act, The word 'expenditure' is of wide import. It would cover payments made for purchases of stock-in-trade also and such payments could be disallowed if they are made in cash exceeding Rs....
Shripati Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1978
Reported in: [1988]114ITR429(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Kanpur, imposed on the assessee a penalty in the sum of Rs. 59,476, being the amount of income concealed, for the assessment year 1968-69. The concealed income consisted of two items. One was dividend income of Rs. 24,750. This amount was declared as dividend by Messrs. Straw Products Ltd., Bhopal. The declaration was made on June 29, 1966, and the warrant of dividend that was issued was dated August 8, 1967. The assessee did not maintain regular accounts. He, however, maintained a memorandum book in which he entered this dividend income on March 13, 1969. The assessee's accounting year for 1968-69 ended on March 28, 1968. It is thus evident that the declaration of dividend was made during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69. The warrant was also issued within that year.2. The other item related to special remuneration received by the assessee as director of Messrs. J. K. Industries (Private) Ltd., Kanp...
Shripati Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR429(All)
SATISH CHANDRA J. - The Inspective Assistant Commissioner, Kanpur, imposed on the assessed a penalty in the sum of Rs. 59,476, being the amount of income concealed, for the assessment year 1968-69. The concealed income consisted of two items. One was dividend income of Rs. 24,750 This amount was declared as dividend by Messrs. Straw products Ltd. Bhopal, the declaration was made on June 29, 1966, and the warrant of dividend that was issued was dated August 8, 1967. The assessee did not maintain regular accounts. He however, maintained a memorandum book in which the interest this dividend income on March 13, 1969. The assessees accounting year for 1968-69 ended on March 28, 1968. It is thus evident that the declaration of dividend was made during the accounting year relevant to the assessment years 1968-69. The warrant was also issued within that year.The other item related to special remunerations received by the assessee as director of Messrs. J. K. Industries, (Private) Ltd., Kanpur....
Kalka Prasad Ramlal Vs. Rammo Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All298
ORDERC.S.P. Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against an order refusing permission to file an appeal as a pauper.2. A decree had been obtained against a firm, which consisted of two partners, one Sri Ram Lal and the other Sri Moonga Ram. Ram Lal filed an appeal to the District Judge on behalf of the firm and sought permission to file the appeal as pauper. The matter was sent for inquiry to the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge found that Ram Lal who had preferred the appeal on behalf of the firm had no means to pay the court-fee. He, however, found that there was no evidence on record that Moonga Ram the other partner did not have sufficient means to pay the court-fee, and further that as the firm had been carrying on buisness of Dal Mill before it was closed, it could not be said that the appellant firm did not have any assets out of which the court-fee could be paid. After recording these findings, the matter went back to the District Judge. The District Judge took the same view.3. Co...
Jagdish Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All311
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising from a suit for injunction.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they were the owners of two shops Nos. 51 and 72 situate in the New Market, Tundla. The shops had been purchased by them from the Government, On the east towards the back of the shops there was a public drain and road patri which was admittedly public land. The plaintiffs wanted to open the door at the right end side of the eastern wall of their shops. The defendants who were large in numbers being the members of the public prevented the plaintiffs from doing so and wanted to construct a latrine at the place where the plaintiffs wanted to open their door. A suit was, accordingly, filed against the defendants under Order 1, Rule 8 pf the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that there was a public urinal at the place where the plaintiffs wanted to open the door in the eastern wall of their shops and that urinal was wrongfully dem...
Narendra Babu and anr. Vs. Vidya Sagar Awasthi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All415
ORDERMahavir Singh, J.1. This is a revision by the defendants against a part of the Order of learned Second Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, in revision No. 154 of 1974 by which he gave certain directions to the Lower Court while holding that revision was barred by time.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff opposite-party No. 1 had filed a suit No. 13 of 1964 against the applicants for cancellation of a will alleged to have been made in favour of applicant No. 1 by Smt. Sundari Devi on 20-6-59. His allegation was that the will was not executed by Smt. Sundari and in case it was found to have been executed, it was under fraud.3. Sometime during the hearing of a revision in connection with some other proceeding in that earlier suit, the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed another suit No. 53 of 1967 against those very applicants for possession. He claimed that he was owner of the property being heir of Smt. Sundari Devi and that he had been dispossessed by the defendants-a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »