Allahabad Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dinesh Prakashan Mandir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)300; [1979]120ITR376(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a publishing concern. It, inter alia, publishes an annual publication called ' Dinesh Sure Guess '. In the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the turnover of sales of this publication was Rs. 4,84,544 and Rs. 6,10,850, respectively. It claimed a specialdeduction of 20% under Section 80QQ of the I.T. Act, 1961. This claim was disallowed on the ground that the publication was of the nature of brochures, tracts and pamphlets, covered by Sub-section (3) of Section 80QQ. On appeal, the claim for deduction of 20% was allowed on the view that the publication did not fall within these exceptions. The Tribunal upheld the allowance of the claim.2. At the instance of the CIT, 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 legally correct in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order allowing the benefit of deduction of 20% to the assessee-fi...
Ram Kumar Pharmaceutical Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)168; [1979]119ITR33(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee, M/s. Kumar Pharmaceutical Works, is a registered firm carrying on business, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of saccharine. On February 6, 1961, it entered into an agreement with Heyden, a West German concern. Under this agreement, Heyden was to transmit to the assessee know-how and data for construction and operation of a plant for the manufacture of saccharine by flow-sheet process. For cession of the know-how and data, Kumar was to pay to Heyden a sum of DM 10,000 immediately on the conclusion of the agreement and, in addition, for the next five years, a royalty of 2 1/2% on the sale value of the manufactured products, subject to the maximum of DM 35,000.2. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee paid Rs. 28,917 as royalty to Heyden. It claimed deduction on the ground that it was a revenue expenditure. This was disallowed, and the disallowance was affirmed in appeal as well as by the Tribunal on further appeal. The Tribunal held that...
P.D. Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)194; [1979]118ITR376(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following questions : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in saying that the valuers had considered the effect of the provisions of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act in determining the value of the house in dispute (ii) In any case, whether the view of the valuers and/or the Tribunal that the provisions of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act were not material for purposes of the valuation of the house in dispute is right in law (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the house in dispute has been determined correctly ?' 2. The questions relate to valuation of the house property No. 113/8, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. This house was used by the assessee, P.D. Singhania, as his residential house. In wealth-tax proceedings the assessee declared the fair market price of the house at Rs. 65,555 a...
Prime Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)203; [1979]116ITR473(All); [1979]1TAXMAN229(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The two questions referred for our opinion in R.A. No. 206 of 1974-75 raise the question whether for determining capital gains, an assessee is entitled to rely on the written down value of an asset and not the fair market value of the asset as on January 1, 1954, while determining the cost of its acquisition. This question has been specifically answered in CIT v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills : [1979]116ITR240(All) by holding that, firstly, Section 55(2) of the I.T Act does not apply or prevail over Section 50 and that in cases where assets have not been acquired in any of the modes mentioned in Section 48 of the Act, the option was not available and the written down value and not the fair market value of the asset has to be taken as the cost of acquisition. This decision is applicable on all fours. We, therefore, have no hesitation in answering both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee.2. In R.A. No. 207(Alld.) of 1974-...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. H.M. Ashiq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC281(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the caps sold by the assessee were covered under the expression of 'ready-made garments other than those made out of woollen cloth' of Notification No. ST-6439/X-1012-1962 dated 1st December, 1962?2. The answer to the question referred, for the assessment year 1966-67, depends on whether the caps, made of fur and velvetine, manufactured by the assessee, commercially known as Rampuri caps, are ready-made garments other than those made out of woollen cloth or is an unclassified item for purposes of levy of sales tax.3. The dictionary meaning of garment is an article of clothing. The Hindi version of the notification reads as under :Uni kapre se banaye gaye sile silae paridhan se bhinnna sile silae paridhan (ready-made garments).4. The learned standing counsel has relied on the word 'paridhan' and has urged that if the intention was to confine...
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. the Additional Revising Authority ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC107(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer. He submitted his return of turnover. That was rejected and the turnover was enhanced by the Sales Tax Officer. He, thereupon, filed stay application before the additional revising authority for stay of the disputed tax and also made an application for waiver of one-third of the disputed tax. This application was made under Section 10(4) of the Act. The additional revising authority rejected the application for waiver, vide order, which is in the following terras:Heard the parties and gone through the papers. In my opinion, no special and adequate reasons are made out. Waiver is rejected.2. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that no reasons are given by the revising authority for passing the impugned order.3. Sri V. D. Singh, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. He has contended that the petitioner has an alternati...
Smt. Shyama Devi Vs. Firm Ramjas Rolling Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All16
ORDERA. Banerji, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the District Judge of Jaunpur dated 9th April, 1977 in Execution Case No. 1 of 1975. The learned District Judge dismissed the application 27/C under Order XXI, Rule 59 (b) C.P.C. praying for the stay of the confirmation of sale of the house.2. Firm Ramjas Rolling Mills, Uchehra, district Satna and Dharam Chand, opposite parties 1 and 2, in this revision, obtained a decree for the recovery of Rs. 15,029-32 against opposite parties 3 to 7 and also against the late Sri Ram Kadam, father of opposite parties 6 to 13, from the Court of the District Judge, Satna, on 18-1-1974. The decree was transferred for execution to the court of the District Judge, Jaunpur. One house and an Ahata situate in Tehsil Shahganj were attached by the order of the District Judge, Jaunpr. Smt. Shyama Devi, wife of Ram Kadam and mother of opposite parties 6 to 13 and one Smt. Chandrawati Devi filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. in r...
Ajai Kumar Vs. the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All13
M. Murtaza Husain, J.1. This is a student's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31-12-75 and 11-5-76 passed by the opposite party, namely, the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad or the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. at Allahabad, The petitioner has further prayed for issuing any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the opposite party for declaring the petitioner's result of Intermediate Final Examination, 1975 which examination he is said to have passed, in Second Division.2. The undisputed facts of the case, giving rise to this petition, are that the opposite party is a statutory body created under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Its function is to conduct High School and Intermediate Examination in the State. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, petitioner had appeared at the Intermediate Final Examination of the year 1974-75, His subjects were of Mathematics Group. The petitione...
Rajeev Ratan Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All528
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition arises out of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter described as the Act.2. The brief facts are these:--A notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the said Act to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority and the former filed objections. Inter alia, one of the objections was that a transaction of sale effected by a registered saledeed dated 29th October, 1971 relating to 12.50 acres of land was being wrongly disregarded in the said proceedings and that the said transaction should have been accepted and the area of the sale deed should have been excluded from the total land in the possession of the petitioner. The prescribed Authority did not accept the said contention and held that the transaction which was post-24th Jan. 1971 was not a genuine one. The petitioner went up in appeal to the lower appellate court. In the order of the lower appellate court while the petitioner's objection about certain land treated as irr...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)185; [1981]128ITR559(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. For the assessment year 1967-68, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to warrant the conclusion that the assessee had established that he was not guilty of fraud or wilful or gross negligence in furnishing the particulars of his income within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee owns a truck which is run in partnership with some other persons. He had 50 per cent, shares in two partnership firms. He filed a return on 29th July, 1968, disclosing an income of Rs. 4,000. The ITO, having come to know that the assessee had made investments to the tune of Rs. 1-5,000 in purchasing a truck, called upon the assessee to explain its source. The explanation offered by the assessee was not found believable and a sum of Rs. 13,000 was added as income from undisclosed sources.3. The ITO initiated pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »