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.
Aftab Ahmad Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1333
ORDERMohd. M. Husain, J.1. Aftab Ahmad Khan revisionist has been convicted under Section 27(b) and Section 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 by a Magistrate of the Ist Class at Lucknow. The learned Magistrate has sentenced the revisionist to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each on the aforesaid two counts. On appeal the learned Addl. Distrist and Sessions Judge, Lucknow refused to interfere with the revisionist's conviction and sentence. He has now come to this Court with this revision.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the revisionist is the managing proprietor of a Firm of Chemists and Druggists which carries on business in the market of Aminabad at Lucknow under the name and style of M/s. Siraj Ahmad and Vakil Ahmad. The said firm has a licence for selling drugs and chemicals. On 25-8-1973 Sri S. K. Vishnoi, Drug Inspector inspected the premises of the aforesaid firm. He found some expired date medicines and some medicines, which were physician's samples stocked in an Almirah wh...
Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1983]144ITR29(All)
K.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 73,087.69 along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum and directed against the judgment dated May 23, 1962, of the 2nd Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing the suit.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Modi Supplies Corporation Ltd. was a public limited company and dealt in the manufacture and sale of biscuits, confectionery and hurricane lanterns. In the year 1956, the aforesaid company was amalgamated with the Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. and stood dissolved with effect from August 25, 1955, as is evident from the order of the Punjab High Court dated May 25, 1956, in Civil Original Petition No. 23 of 1956. It was alleged by the Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. (plaintiff) that the I.T. Department of the defendant assessed the defunct Modi Supplies Corporation Ltd. for the assessment year 1952-53, under the order dated March 29, 1957, passed by the ITO and that the assessment order was void as it was...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram NaraIn Kishan Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR776(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The assessee deals in sale of stone, timber and timber goods. For the assessment year 1970-71, the ITO disallowed a sum of Rs. 22,964 which represented purchases made by the assessee for its stock-in-trade but which were made in cash although the individual payments exceeded Rs. 2,500. It was held that Section 40A(3) of the Act applied and the assessee has failed to come within any of the exceptions of Rule 6DD of the Rules. On appeal, the AAC held that the assessee has been able to establish the genuineness of the payments as well as the identity of the persons to whom the payments were made and he, therefore, allowed the appeal and sustained the disallowance only to the extent of Rs. 2,726. The department went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the word 'expenditure' occurring in Section 40A did not include the amounts laid out for purchases of stock-in-trade but it had reference only to deductions that could be made from the gross profits comp...
Ajai Singh Vs. Nathi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ629
J.P. Chaturvedi, J.1. These are three connected cases. Criminal Revision No. 1253 of 1977 is by Ajai Singh against an order of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, dated 24th August 1977 setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 2nd August 1977 releasing truck No. U. P. U. 2645. Misc. Case No. 3861 of 1976 is an application by Ram Naresih Singh Under Section 482, Criminal P. C. while Misc. Case No. 1169 of 1977 is an application by Abdul Razzaq Under Sections 482 and 483, Cr.PC In these three cases a common question of law arose and, therefore, they were referred to us.2. The facts concerning Criminal Revision No. 1253 of 1977 are that truck No. U. P. U. 2645 was seized by Hari Parwat police during investigation of a murder case, Ajai Singh applicant moved an application for release of the truck. This application was allowed by the Magistrate and the truck was released in favour of the applicant on his furnishing two sureties each of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with a p...
Modi Sugars Mills Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of IndiA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: [1983]144ITR28(All)
K. P. SINGH J. - The is is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 73,087.69 along within future interest at there rate of 6% Per annum and directed against there judgment dated May 23, 1962, of there 2nd Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing there suit.There brief facts of there case are as follows :Modi Supplies Corporation Ltd. was a public limited company and dealt in there manufacture and sale of biscuits, confectionery and hurricane lanterns. In there year 1956, there aforesaid company was amalgamated within there Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. and stood dissolved within effect from August 25,1955, as is evident from there order of there Punjab High Court dated May 25,1956, in Civil Original Petition No. 23 of 1956. It was alleged by there Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. (plaintiff) threat there I.T. Department there assessment year 1952-53, under there order dated March 29, 1957, . passed by there ITO and threat there assessment order was void as it was against there company which ...
Bahori Vs. Vidya Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All299
ORDERA. Banerji, J. 1. The District Judge, Budaun dismissed a revision as not maintainable on the ground that an appeal lay. The District Judge further held that the prayer for the conversion of the revision into an appeal could not be granted as the prayer was made after the period of filing the appeal had expired.2. It was urged on 'behalf of the revisionist that the view taken by the learned District Judge was manifestly erroneous as the Court had power to order the conversion of a revision into an appeal where the revision was filed within the time provided for the filing of an appeal. It was further urged that since the District Judge was also competent to hear the appeal against the order of the learned Munsif he should have treated the revision as an appeal and heard it on merits. The failure on his part to do so has resulted in an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.3. The trial court while setting aside an ex parte decree, under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. imposed certain conditio...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR432(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The question of law on which the Tribunal has solicited our opinion is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of contribution made by it to its own gratuity fund, which admittedly was not one of the approved gratuity funds spoken of under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction. This question is no longer res integra. This court in Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 92 ITR 503 has held that contribution towards gratuity fund was a permissible business expenditure. For the department it was contended that the payment of gratuity is provided for in Clause (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it can only be allowed in accordance with that provision. This contention was answered by holding that the said case was not covered by Section 36(1)(v) which permits deduction out of the gross profits of any contributio...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rup Chemicals (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)188
Satish Chandra, J. - The question of law on which the Tribunal has solicited our opinion is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of contributions made by it to its own gratuity fund which admittedly was not one of the approved gratuity funds spoken of under S. 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act 1961 ?2. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction. This question is no loner res-integra. This Court in M. M. Sugar Mills vs. Commissioner of Income-tax has held that contribution towards Gratuity Fund was a permissible business expenditure. For the Department it was contended that the payment of gratuity is provided for in clause (v) of Sub-S. (1) of S. 36 of the Income-tax Act and it can only be allowed in accordance with that provision. This contention was answered by holding that the said case was not covered by S. 36(1)(v) which permits deduction out of the gross profits of any contribution made by an employer towards gratuity fund created un...
Singhal and Co. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)312
ORDERSatish Chandra, J. - The petitioner challenges the assessment order dated February 27, 1975 passed for the assessment year 1971-72. One of the grounds taken in the writ petition was that Rule 8-B of the Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was ultra vires in so far as it required the filing of the forms E-1 and C along with the return. The Sales Tax Officer refused to consider these forms because they had not been filed along with the return.2. This petition came up for hearing on January 6, 1978. On that date, we adjourned the Sales Tax Officer to reconsider the matter. The Sales Tax Officer has, after hearing the petitioner-assessee, passed a fresh order of rectification on January 21, 1978 in which he had specifically stated that the petitioner was entitled to consideration of form E-1 and has granted adequate relief. For sales worth Rs. 13,119.11, the petitioner did not have any form C at all and, therefore, he was not granted any exemption. The Sales Tax Officer may have been right ...
Shital Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All253
ORDERDeoki Nandan, J. 1. This writ petition arises from an order dated November 23, 1974 of the Prescribed Authority Koil, District Aligarh, and that dated July 30, 1975 of the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh, on appeal therefrom under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Three points were urged before the learned Additional Civil Judge. The first point related to a sale deed dated October 27, 1971 in respect of 9 bighas of land out of plot No. 262 sold by the petitioner to Smt. Veervati and others for a consideration of Rs. 8,000 only. The next point related to plot No. 262 in respect of which it was contended that it was unirrigated but had wrongly been taken to be irrigated. The last point related to Plot No. 104 which was said to be a grove.2. Mr. B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the order of the Prescribed Authority was bad for it contained no reasons for the findings recorded by him and that theorder of the learned Add...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »