Allahabad Court April 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.
Surjidevi Kunjilal Jaipuria Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR685(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. By a trust deed dated April 24, 1958, a trust known as Surjidevi Kunjilal Jaipuria Charitable Trust was created. For the assessment year 1961-62, the question arose whether this trust was entitled to exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act. It appears that before the Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the trust had conceded that two of the objects mentioned in that trust deed could not be classified as objects of public charity. The Tribunal ultimately held that the trust was not entitled to exemption under the aforesaid provision. On a reference to this court, this court emphasised that since it was conceded before the Tribunal that two of the objects were not objects of public charity, this court could not proceed on the footing as if all the objects were objects of public charity. Ultimately, this court upheld the opinion of the Tribunal that the trust was not entitled to exemption.2. For the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the same q...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR735(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., the assessee, was liable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. For the assessment year 1967-68, the I.TO proceeded to compute the chargeable profits of the assessee by taking the total income as assessed under the I.T. Act.2. It appears that in the assessment under the I.T. Act the amounts claimed as deductible allowances on account of entertainment expenses, advertisement and commission had been disallowed. The total income assessed included the claimed expenses under these three heads. The ITO,while computing the chargeable profits, did not make any additions under Rule 3(ii) of the First Schedule to the Act.3. The assessee felt aggrieved, and went up in appeal. It claimed relief of Rs. 8,505 on account of entertainment expenses, Rs. 3,288 on account of advertisement, and Rs. 12,000 on account of commission. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that since these amounts stand included in the computation of chargeable...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Chunni Lal Anand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR355(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment year 1968-69 the assessee should have filed his return under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on or before June 30, 1968. The return was, however, filed on December 30, 1969. The WTO imposed penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act, 1957. When the matter reached the Tribunal, it held that the law as it stood on April 1 of the assessment year, namely, April 1, 1968, was applicable in order to determine the quantum of the penalty imposable. At the instance of the department, the Tribunal has referred the question of law, namely, whether penalty under Section 18(1)(a) was leviable with regard to the provisions as they stood on April 1, 1968, or with reference to the provisions as they stood on April 1, 1969.2. It may be mentioned that on April 1, 1969, the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) were amended. 3. In CWT v. Ram Narain Agrawal : [1977]106ITR965(All) , it was held that the law as it stood on the date of the default, namely, on the last date whe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR684(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The Tribunal has referred to us the following two questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to determine the discounted value of the assessee's. liability to pay gratuity based on actuarial valuation for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 and treat the same as a permissible deduction under Section 37(1) read with Section 40(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the funds had not been approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the case was not covered by Section 36(1)(v) of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim for deduction of its contribution to the employees' gratuity funds amounting to Rs. 35,870, Rs. 33,454 and Rs. 37,290 for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, was admissible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the fun...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vinod Bakery
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC471(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court:-Whether biscuits and breads sold by a bakery should be assessed to tax as 'cooked food' vide Notifications Nos. ST-4025/X-1012(4)-1965 dated 18th August, 1966 and ST-3612/X-900(21)-69 dated 1st July, 1969, or as unclassified goods 2. The question whether biscuits are cooked food or are confectionery has been considered earlier in two decisions of this Court. It was held in Annapuma Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. State of U. P. 1974 U.P.T.C. 620, that biscuit is not an article of confectionery. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Jassu Ram Bakery Dealer, Meerut 1976 U.P.T.C, 584, it was held that biscuit is not cooked food. We agree with the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions and hold that biscuit is not cooked food or confectionery.3. The only question that survives is whether bread sold by a bakery is covered by the entry 'cooked food'. This entry was considered in Jassu Ram's cas...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mohan Lal Goverdhan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC325(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law referred for our opinion is whether chirwa and kheel were different forms of rice taxable at the same rate as rice or not. The Sales Tax Officer brought to tax the assessee's turnover in chirwa and kheel, etc., at 2 per cent treating them to be unclassified items. On appeal, the assessee's contention that chirwa and kheel were foodgrains and hence should have been taxed at 1 per cent was accepted. This was upheld in revision.2. The relevant entry for which sales tax was chargeable at 1 per cent read 'foodgrains including cereals and pulses but excluding...paddy'. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the revenue is that chirwa and kheel were products of paddy. This seems to be contrary to the stance taken by the department before the authorities below where it was argued that chirwa and kheel were by-products of rice. This technicality apart, rice is produced from paddy. It is produced after husking paddy. Chirwa and kheel are made from ri...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. State Warehousing Corpn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)455
Satish Chandra, C.J. - For the assessment year 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our opinion :-'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessees income from warehousing charges and miscellaneous receipts was exempt from tax within the meaning of S. 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 notwithstanding the provisions of S. 39 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that no surtax was chargeable on the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71, even though the assessee had itself filed return of chargeable profit under S. 5 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, showing the chargeable profits at Rs. 6,65,270/- ?'The Tribunal following a decision of this Court in U.P. State Warehousing Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Circle II, and another, has h...
Mohan Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All170
Hari Swarup, J.1. The following question of law was referred by a Division Bench for the opinion of the larger Bench.'Whether the Bengal Army Regulation Governor General Order No. 179 dated September 12, 1836 continues to be law in force in India even after the enforcement of the British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960 (Act No. LVII of 1960)?The question had arisen in the writ petitions filed to challenge the notices of resumption issued by the Union of India exercising the right of resumption under the grants on the basis of which the petitioners, according to the respondents, were holding the lands.2. The action is being taken in exercise of the power under the Governor General Order No. 179 dated September 12, 1836. The Order does not indicate the source of power. The source of power can, however, be traced to the Government of India Act, 1833. Section 43 of this Act provided that the said Governor-General in Council shall have the power to make Laws and regulations...
Debi Prasad Vs. Lachhman Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All366
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff's case is that plaintiff No. 1. Lachhman Singh and his sons Ramesh Chandra and Suresh Chandra form a joint Hindu family which is governed by a Mitakshara Law and the plaintiff No. 1 was the manager of the family. According to the plaintiffs they filed a suit for the partition of the joint family ancestral property including house No. 491, Faithfulganj Kanpur, Cantt. impleading defendants Nos. 4 to 6 namely Badri Prasad, Chhedi Lal and Babu lal sons of Hulasi as defendants. The suit had to be filed against defendants Nos. 4 to 6 as they were in actual possession of the joint family property including house No. 491. Faithfulganj, Kanpur, Cantonment and wera benefited from the rental income derived therefrom. The suit was decreed and the plaintiffs obtained formal possession through court on 11-12-1962. It was stated in the plaint that the half share in house No. 4...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Anup Sanitary Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC408(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question referred for our opinion is whether G. I. pipes and C. I. pipes were taxable as unclassified items at 2 per cent or under the entry 'wares made of any metal or alloy'. Similar question arose in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors 1975 U.P.T.C. 517. It was held that on a reading of the English and Hindi version of the notification dated 21st May, 1963, it is clear that the word 'ware' used in the English version has been used in the sense of such ware as are commonly used as utensils (bartan). It was only the wares that were commonly used as 'utensils' that were intended to be brought within the purview of this entry. Articles which cannot be called utensils will not be covered by that entry. In that case, cement pipes were in question. It was held that they were taxable at 2 per cent as an unclassified item. The principle laid down in that decision is applicable to the present case. G. I. and C. I. pipes are not used as utensi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »