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.
Nanhey Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1001
ORDERV.N. Varma, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 19-9-1973 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under Section 25 Arms Act,2. Briefly put the prosecution case is that on 6-8-72, at about 10 A.M., constable Vidya Ram was on patrol duty in the company of some other constables and when he reached near the Mandai of Thakur Ji in village Changsi, he saw the applicant sitting under a Pipal tree, After seeing the police party he got nervous, and immediately tried to leave the place. He was asked to stop, but instead of stopping, he started running. The police party chased him and with the help of some witnesses succeeded in catching him, He was none other than the applicant of this case, He was searched and a country-made gun and two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. These articles were sealed at the spot. The applicant was thereafter taken to Thana where a case was registered against him under Section 25, Arms Act. The u...
Oriental Art Glories Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR872(All)
SATISH CHANDRA C.J. - It appears that initially Hafiz Shaukat Hussain carried on business under the name and style of Oriental Art Glories, Moradabad. He dealth with brasswares including their export. On July 14, 1967, he entered into an agreement of partnership with Hasin Ahmad that with effect from July 15, 1967, the business will be carried on in partnership, but under the same name of Oriental Art Glories. Both the partner had equal share in profit and loss. The partnership was stated to be for a period of three years.On March 31, 1969, the firm was dissolved. Hasin Ahmad went out and the business was taken over by Hafiz Shaukat Hussain. On March 31, 1969, the state of affairs appears to have been that it suffe red a loss of Rs. 8,287.96. Subsequently, they entered into a written agreement indicating the extent of loss and also stating that by this time the likely profits and premium on earned entitlements and release orders granted against export made and the amount of drawback du...
P. K. Pehuja Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)414
Satish Chandra, C.J. - The Central Board of Direct Taxes passed an order dated 19th July, 1975 purporting to be under S. 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 transferring the cases under the Income Tax Act, of the petitioner-assessee from the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, A-word, Moradabad, to the Income-tax Officer, District-1 (2) Additional, New Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not communicated the reasons, if any, which were recorded to sustain this order. Reliance has been placed on Ajantha Industries vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, where the Supreme Court held that the requirement of recording reasons under S. 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the transfer of a case from one Income-tax Officer to another, is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof to the assessee is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file, although not communicated to the assessee. This case is applicable to the petitioner o...
Metal India Products, Hathras Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All535; [1978]113ITR830(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a firm. It carries on business of manufacture and sale of building fittings at Hathras. For the assessment year 1963-64, the return was due to be filed on or before Sept. 30, 1963 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1965-66, the return under Section 139(1) was due to be filed on or before Sept. 30, 1965. No notice under Section 139(2) was served on the assessee for either of the two years. The assessee filed its return under Section 139(4) of the Act on Oct. 12, 1966 for both the assessment years. It declared an income of Rs. 9,920/-for the assessment year 1963-64 and an income of Rs. 37,140/- for the assessment year 1965-66.2. The Income Tax Officer, by an assessment order dated December 25, 1967, assessed the total income for 1963-64 at Rs. 14,776/-, while for the year 1965-68 he computed the assessable income at Rs. 45,205/-.3. Finding that there was delay in filing the return, the Income Tax Officer initia...
Kota Box Mfg. Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)373; [1980]123ITR638(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The principal point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether Sub-rule (3) of Rule 19A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, was ultra vires the provisions of Section 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It carries on business of manufacture of card board boxes. For the assessment year 1974-75, it claimed relief under Section 80J to the extent of deduction of 6 per cent. on the total capital employed by it including the borrowed1 capital. On this ground, the petitioner firm claimed a relief of Rs. 94,254 on the basis of the total capital either invested by the partners or borrowed by the firm, as on 3rd November, 1972, which was the opening day of the relevant accounting period. 3. The ITO relying upon Sub-rule (3) of Rule 19A held that the assessee was not entitled to the relief in respect of borrowed capital. He, therefore, allowed the relief to the extent of Rs. 35,798. 4. The assessee went up in appeal. The AAC held that...
Hari Kishan and ors. Vs. Notified Authority Under the Income-tax Act a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR276(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. On 12th November, 1973, Hari Kishan, petitioner No. 1, visited the premises of Messrs. Mahavir Prasad Suraj Prasad,Jewellers, Kanpur. At that time, he was carrying a jhola containing a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash and certain jewellery and ornaments. Soon after a party from the income-tax department raided the premises of Messrs. Maha-vir Prasad Suraj Prasad. It seized and took into custody the jhola carrying the cash as well as the ornaments from petitioner No. 1. In due course, petitioner No. 1 made an application under Section 132(11) of the I.T. Act, praying that the cash amount of Rs. 20,000 be returned to him. It appears that the ornaments had already been returned to him. This application was made to the Board of Direct Taxes as the Notified Authority. The Board, by its order dated 6th September, 1976, dismissed the application on the ground that since an order under Section 132(5) had been passed in relation to the firm, Messrs. Mahavir Prasad Suraj Prasad, ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Parkash Goyal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)310
Satish Chandra, C.J. - For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,800/-under S. 23(2) of the Act as a deduction from out of his share income from properties. The Income Tax Officer, however, allowed deduction to the extent of 51.5% of Rs. 1,800/-.2. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this view. The Assessee went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that S. 23(2) applied in respect of each assessee separately. The total income of each co-owner is likely to be different in the case of different co-owners. Each co-owner is entitled to the benefit of S. 23(2) of the Act. On this view, the appeal was allowed.3. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following question of law :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee and his two co-owners were separately entitled to the benefit of the statutory deduction of Rs. 1,8...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Krishna Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR218(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. On August 26, 1966, Ram Krishna Gupta exe-cuted a deed of trust endowing a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the trust after divesting himself of its ownership. He appointed himself as the sole trustee during his lifetime and his son after his death. The income of the trust was to be spent on various charitable purposes mentioned in the deed. On the same day, Ram Kumar Gupta, the brother of Ram Krishna Gupta, executed a similar deed of trust. He also endowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the trust and appointed himself as the sole trustee of the trust during his lifetime and his son after his death. The objects and purposes on which the income of the trusts was to be spent were almost similar.2. On October 15, 1966, these two gentlemen executed a deed of partnership. In that they stated that the capital of the partnership will be Rs. 2,000, Rs. 1,000 having been contributed by each. The document specifically stated that Ram Krishna Gupta and Ram Kumar Gupta were partners in this firm...
Baij Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ784
ORDERV.N. Verma, J.1. This reference has been made by Sessions Judge Ballia with the recommendation that the order dated 15-5-73 passed by S.D.M. Ballia delivering possession of the subject of dispute to Deo Sagar Pande (Second Party) in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC be quashed.2. The subject of dispute in the case Under Section 145 Cr.PC was Chak No. 463 situate in Chandpur district Ballia. This chak was comprised of four plots bearing Nos. 866, 867, 868 and 869 measuring 2.45 acres. It appears that there was a dispute between Baij Nath Singh (First Party) and Deo Sagar Pande (Second Party) regarding the aforesaid Chak. That dispute generated much attention and there was likelihood of breach of peace. S.O.P.S. Bairia, therefore, submitted a report in the Court of S.D.M. Ballia and prayed that action Under Section 145 Cr.PC be taken. The learned Magistrate felt satisfied that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the disputed land and that dispute was such as was like...
Wealth Tax Officer Vs. Manohar Lal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)307
Satish Chandra, C.J. - Sri Durga Prasad, the assessee, died on June 25, 1968. His heirs filed the return for the assessment years 1968-68 and 1968-69 on March 9, 1970 and March 10, 1970, though they were due to be filed upto June 30, 1967 and June 30, 1968. The Wealth Tax Officer commenced penalty proceedings for the late flin of these returns. After hearing the assessee, he found that there was no reasonable cause for the delay. He levied a penalty of Rs. 3,198/- for the first and Rs. 9,803/- for the second year. He computed these amount on the principle that the defaults that were committed prior to April, 1969 would carry a penalty at the rate of 2% of the evaded tax per month subject to the maximum of 50% which was the law prevailing at that time. On April 1, 1969, the relevant provisions of the law were amended and provided for the levy of penalty at the rate of 2% of the wealth which was sought to be evaded. Considering the facts, he levied a penalty at the rate of 1/2% on the as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »