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.
State Vs. Abdul Ghani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1345
H.N. Kapoor, J.1. This is a Govt. Appeal against the order and judgment dated 7-6-1972 of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 1972 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Magistrate convicting the respondent Abdul Ghani under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and sentencing him to two years' R.I.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows : - The respondent Abdul Ghani had entered India in 1954 on the basis of a Pakistani passport which was valid for a period of two months. He did not return back. On 3-2-1967 S. I, Ram Chandra Singh arrested him for his over-staying in India and lodged a written report at police station Chandwak on the basis of which the respondent was duly prosecuted. It is not disputed that he was originally a resident of village Barauti, P. S. and district Jaunpur before the migrated to Pakistan. During the pendency of the trial, a declaration of the Central Government was made under the Citizen...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ram Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC432(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee did not file any return for the assessment year 1959-60. The Sales Tax Officer issued notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. This notice was served by affixation on 11th March, 1964. The assessee, however, did not appear. The Sales Tax Officer passed an assessment order.2. The assessee appealed. The assessment order was set aside and the case was remanded. After remand the Sales Tax Officer passed a best Judgment assessment on the ground that the assessee had not maintained any accounts. The assessment was made on a net turnover of Rs. 53,550. The assessee was assessed to a tax of Rs. 1,077.3. The assessee again appealed. This time he took up the plea that the notice under Section 21 was not validly served upon him and, hence, the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. This plea was upheld, the appeal was allowed and the assessment order was annulled. This view was upheld by the revising authority.4. At the instance of the Commiss...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1978
Reported in: [1981]127ITR800(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm. All the nine members belonged to the same family. In the previous year relevant to 1951-52 assessment, the assessee advanced a loan of Rs. 20,00,000 to Messrs. Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd., Calcutta. On June 23, 1960, the creditor and the debtor came to a settlement whereby a sum of Rs. 4,50,000, which was outstanding on that date, was paid up, inter alia, by transferring 150 ordinary shares of Messrs. Muir Mills Co. Ltd. and 600 preference shares of Messrs. Muir Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur. In the settlement, the ordinary shares were valued at Rs. 600 per share, while the preference shares were valued at Rs. 290 per share, on the footing that the debtor-company had purchased those shares at that rate. The balance was to be paid in instalments.2. The market value of the ordinary and preference shares on the date of settlement was Rs. 65 and Rs. 83 per share, respectively. The assessee in its own books credited the account of Mess...
Mahesh Singh Vs. S.i. Jagdish Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1422
ORDERMufti, J.1. Sometime in the year 1972, a complaint was filed by the applicant against opposite parties 1 to 7 in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur. After holding preliminary inquiry in the usual manner the learned Magistrate found that there was a prima facie case and issued process for compelling the attendance of the opposite parties 1 to 7 to answer the charges under Sections 342, 385 and 395. I.P.C. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Kotwali, Kanpur. During the pendency of the committal proceedings, the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 came into force with effect from 1-4-1974. On 2-12-1974, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:Sardar Mahesh Singh has filed this complaint against the accused persons, S. I. Jagdish Singh, S. I. Pravin Singh, Head Constable Jagat Singh, Constable Ajai Singh. Constable Gaya Prasad, Raj Kumar and Shiv Nath. The allegations are that on 28-7-1972 at about 4 P. M. t...
Hari Lal Vs. Amrik Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All292
Gopi Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the premises in suit and the landlord of the defendant No. 1, He further prayed for a decree of eviction against the defendant No. 1 and the recovery of rent, damages and mesne profits from him. Plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 2 Sita Ram was the owner of the house in suit. He sold it to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 8,500 under a registered sale-deed dated 14-8-1966. Defendant No. 1 was Sita Ram's tenant. He was informed of the sale-deed and thathe was the plaintiff's tenant thereafter, He, however, denied Sita Barn's title as also of the plaintiff's to the property and asserted a hostile title in himself, Ha did not pay any rent to the plaintiff since 14--8-1968. He was served with a composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 22-4-1969. Ha paid no heed to it and neither paid any rent nor vacated the premises instead claimed to be the owner ...
Sudarshan and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: [1983]139ITR1032(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the authorisation issued by the Commissioner under Section 132A of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly stated as 'the Act') read with Rule 112D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (briefly stated as 'the Rules') and for a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, as well as the Treasury Officer, Ghazipur, not to deliver the disputed articles to the ITO, Jaunpur, and to return the same to the petitioner.2. On October 9, 1974, the premises of Sudarshan, petitioner No. 2, and Chandrika, both sons of Hardeo and Triloki, s/o Tekmau, were searched by the police authorities on suspicion that they were in possession of stolen ornaments and cash. As a result of the search the following valuable articles and cash were recovered from their respective possession :Sudarshan,son of HardeoSilver Ornaments96Kilogram 500 gramsGold Ornaments858 gramsChandrika,son of HardenSilver Ornaments84Kilogram 700 gramsG...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraya Distillery
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: [1988]115ITR34(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee, a registered firm, runs a distillery atGorakhpur. It was served with a notice under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for payment of advance tax for two years in question. The assessee paid advance tax in accordance with its own estimate. On completion of regular assessment, the tax determined to be payable worked out to be much more than the advance tax paid by the assessee on the basis of its estimate. Since the advance tax paid by the assessee on the basis of its own estimate was less than 75 per cent, of the tax determined on completion of the regular assessment, interest was payable under Section 215 of the Act by the assessee. This interest was, however, not charged and included in the notice of demand. As in the opinion of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax the assessment order, determining the liability, was erroneous and prej...
Jakhodia Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: [1988]115ITR61(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 17th September, 1976 (annexure 25), and the order dated 4th September, 1975 (annexure 18).2. The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on business at Kanpur. Assessments for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, were completed in due course. The petitioner-firm thereafter filed the returns for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. These assessment proceedings were pending completion. On 24th April, 1974, the petitioner filed a disclosure petition disclosing an amount of Rs. 1,25,000 to be assessed in 5 years from the assessment years 1969-70 to 1973-74 in equal amounts of Rs. 25,000 each. The application also contained a prayer for waiver of the penalties under Section 271(4A) of the Act. On September 20, 1974, a letter was sent by the Commissioner of Income-tax to the petitioner initimating that the application for waiver h...
Raja Hari Chand Raj Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR727(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. For the assessment years 1962-63 to 1967-68, the assessee filed his return of income on June 25, 1968. For all theseyears, a consolidated assessment order was passed on March 13, 1969. In the normal course, the assessee received demand notices for each assessment year. The demand notices included certain amounts charged by way of interest for the delay in filing the return. The assessee filed an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that in the assessment order, there was no indication that the assessee was liable to be charged interest for the delay in filing the return, and consequently the inclusion of any amount under this head in the demand notice was an error apparent from the record, and liable to rectification. The Income-tax Officer, however, repelled the contention and rejected the application. On appeal, it was held that no interest was chargeable. Because the assessee had not applied for extension ...
Manoo Lal Kedarnath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR884(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer (Central) Circle, 4, Kanpur, dated 29th August, 1973, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and for a direction restraining the said Income-tax Officer from taking further proceedings pursuant to the above notice. The necessary facts are these:M/s. Manoolal Kedarnath, the petitioner, is a firm consisting of two partners, Rameshwar Prasad and Jageshwar Prasad. The business of the firm was that of a dealer in atta, maida, vegetables, ghee, etc. The original assessment for the assessment year 1965-66, for which relevant accounting year ended on 3rd November, 1964, was completed on March 24, 1970, on an income of Rs. 50,990. On August 27, 1971, a search was made under Section 132(1) of the Act, at the business premises of the petitioner-firm as well as at the residential houses of its partners. In the sea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »