Allahabad Court August 1978 Judgments
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Suraj Mal Jagdish Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC259(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The revising authority has referred the following question for opinion of this Court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the supply of bardana to ex-U. P. principals would not amount to inter-State sales ?2. The assessee was acting as a purchasing agent for ex-U. P. principals for purchase and supply of foodgrains. After making purchases of foodgrains, it purchased gunny bags, as and when required for packing the foodgrains, from M/s. Agrawal Trading Co. Thereafter the packed foodgrains were sent to the ex-U. P. principals. The price for which bardana had been purchased by the assessee for use as a packing material for foodgrains was included in the taxable turnover of the assessee for the purposes of the Central Sales Tax Act. The appeal filed by the assessee succeeded as it was held that the assessee had not sold the gunny bags to its ex-U. P. principals. On revision being filed, the Judge (Revisions) came to the conclusion that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All4
Mehrotra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 24th May, 1973 awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in claim petition No. 147 of 1968. By this order a sum of rupees 25,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal to Smt. Krishna Devi by way of compensation with interest at 6 per cent per annum. The award was made in the circumstances appearing hereinafter. 2. Ompal Singh, aged about 19 years, who was the son of claimant Smt. Krishna Devi, was returning on a scooter on Aug. 8, 1968 at about 11, 15 a.m. to his house from the shop of his father. As he reached near the Kavi Nagar Railway Crossing, on Hapur-Gaziabad Road a bus with registration No. DLP 3622 coming at a high speed from the opposite direction dashed against the scooter, as a result whereof Om Pal Singh died on the spot. This vehicle was owned by the appellant's father Sardar Bachan Singh.In the claim petition, giving rise ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad Gupta Vs. Smt. Saleha Khatoon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All507
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a tenant's writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the fifth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 6-1-1976.2. The premises in dispute belongs to respondent No. 1. An application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed by respondent 1 for release of the house in possession of the petitioner on the ground that the same was in a dilapidated condition and the landlord required it for reconstruction after demolition. The tenant resisted the application and denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition was filed.3. It, however, appears that in the appeal the tenant had filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The application was allowed, and the following paragraph was permitted to be added as...
Tag this Judgment!Bhauram Jawahirmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)58; [1980]121ITR487(All)
M.B. Farooqi, J. 1. For a proper appreciation of the facts it will be convenient to set out the following family pedigree : Brij Mohan ____________________|________________________________ | | | Murari Lal Prabhat Kumar Saroj Kumari (Wife Sita Devi) (Wife Pushpa Devi) (minor daughter)Brij Mohan and his sons, Murari Lal and Prabhat Kumar, constituted a partnership firm called M/s. Bhauram Jawahirmal, the assessee before us. On 22nd August, 1960, Murari Lal purported to make a gift of Rs. 10,000 to his sister, Saroj Kumari. On September 21, 1960, Brij Mohan purported to make a gift of Rs. 10,000 to his second daughter-in-law, Sita Devi. The gifts were effected by transfer entries in the books of the assessee-firm. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee claimed deduction of interest credited in the accounts of Saroj Kumari and Pushpa Devi by reason of the amounts gifted to them on August 23, 1960, and September 21, 1960. TheITO repelled the claim. Equally so the AAC held that these...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC476(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Revising Authority, Varanasi, has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the supply of cement from 'Churk Cement Factory' to 'Dalla Cement Factory' amounted to sale, and liable to sales tax ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount of freight is to be excluded from the taxable turnover and(3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of freight is to be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act, even though the primary transaction is covered by form D ?2. The U. P. Government owned a cement factory known as 'Churk Cement Factory'. It thereafter decided to establish another factory at Dalla. Cement was required for constructing the Dalla Cement Factory, and the State Government decided that cement be supplied from the 'Churk Cement Factory'. The Churk Cement Factory started billing the Dalla Cement ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Sheo Shanker Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC181(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The sales tax application was filed after amendment of Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act in 1977; with the result it has to be treated as a revision. Standing counsel has filed an affidavit of service on the assessee; but none has appeared.2. An ex parte assessment was made against the assessee and he deposited an amount of Rs. 3,682.02 before moving the application under Section 30 for setting aside the ex parte order. An application under Section 30 can be entertained in case a particular amount of tax is deposited by the asses-see. The assessee had to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,910.23 and, as there was a short fall, the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 425.00 deposited by him at the check post barrier, Naubatpur, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 28-A read with Section 13-A(6) be treated as completing the deposit of tax. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer and also repelled in appeal. It, however, found favour with the Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Abdul Khaliq Mistri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC428(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Revising Authority, Meerut, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of tube-well filters was assessable to sales tax as spare parts of machinery for the assessment year 1968-69 2. The question is as to whether filters of tube-well should be assessed as spare parts of machinery or as an unclassified item. Both the appellate authority and the Judge (Revisions) have taken the view that filters cannot be assessed either as machinery or as spare parts. The Judge (Revisions) found that filters were made by perforated tubes and fitted gauze over it. It is common knowledge that filter is an essential part of a tube-well as it prevents substances other than water from going into the suction tube. In case a filter is not titted to the suction tube of a tube-well, the tube-well would become choked and unworkable after some time. It is as such an essential part of the tu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. British India Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR651(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The interesting questions of law which arise for our consideration in this reference under the Indian I.T. Act are : '(1) Whether the regular assessment under the Business Profits Tax Act is required to be made within four years of the end of the chargeable accounting period and (2) If not, whether the making of such an assessment after 20 years was making it within a reasonable time ?' 2. The Tribunal answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Hence, this reference at the instance of the CIT. 3. In respect of various chargeable accounting periods ranging from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1949, the ITO issued a notice under Section 11 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, within a year, and so were provisional assessments made under Section 13 of the Act, the details whereof are as under. The regular assessments were, however, made nearly 20 years later on 30th December, 1969, for all these periods. The tax demand created b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Comilla Mohan Vs. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)196
1. JUDGMENT : K. C. Agrawal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notices dated 31st March, 1976 and 6th September, 1976 issued by the Income-tax Officer A Ward, Varanasi and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents from taking any proceeding in pursuance of the notices mentioned above. These notices had been issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). 2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. Messrs. Renusagar Power Company Limited, the petitioner is a subsidiary company of Messrs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukoot, Mirzapur. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of generation and supply of power. For the assessment year 1972-73, the corresponding financial year of which is from 1st January, 1971 to 31st December, 1971, the petitioner filed its returns of income. By an order of assessment dated March 22, 1975 the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tikam Chand Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR248(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1967-68. The two questions referred for our opinion are in respect of these years. In substance, the question is whether interest is payable for late filing of the return in spite of service of notice under Section 139(2) of the Act and without application for extension of time and without any order by the ITO extending the time for filing the return. For the assessment year 1964-65, the return was to be filed till September 30, 1964. A notice under Section 139(2) of the Act was served on the assessee on June 1, 1964, calling for a return on or before July 1, 1964. The assessee, however, filed the return on May 21, 1965. 2. For the assessment year 1967-68, a notice under Section 139(2) calling for a return to be filed on or before October 3, 1967, was issued on September 4, 1967. The assessee, however, filed the return on February 15, 1969. In both these years, the assessee did not apply to the ITO for e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »