Allahabad Court August 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.
Commercial Art Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)148; [1988]115ITR876(All); [1979]1TAXMAN38(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. It carries on the business of printing press at Lucknow. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessees filed a return. The ITO, however, completed the assessment to the best of his judgment. Subsequently, the ITO felt that some income had escaped assessment. He issued a notice under Section 148 on July 2, 1966. He again issued a notice under Section 143(2) on April 13, 1967, requiring the assessee to attend in order to explain certain matters.2. Though these proceedings were pending, the ITO issued yet another notice under Section 148 on August 30, 1968. In due course, he completed the reassessment proceedings by an order dated December 2, 1968.3. On appeal, the notice dated August 30, 1968, was held to be illegal and the assessment order dated December 2, 1968, having been passed on its basis, was annulled. The department took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the finding that the notice dated Augu...
Commercial Art Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1978
Reported in: (1978)9CTR(All)148; [1978]115ITR876(All)
SATISH CHANDRA C.J. - The assessee is a registered partnership firm. It carries on the business of printing press at Lucknow. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessees filed a return. The ITO, however, completed the assessment to the best of his judgment. Subsequently, the ITO felt that some income had escaped assesment. He issued a notice under s. 148 on July 2, 1966. He again issued a notice under s. 143(2) on April 13, 1967, requiring the assessee to attend in order to explain certain matters.Though these proceedings were pending, the ITO issued yet another notice under s. 148 on August 30, 1968. In due course, he completed the reassessment proceedings by an order dated December 2, 1968.On appeal, the notice dated August 30, 1968, was held to be illegal and the assessment order dated December 2, 1968, having been passed on its basis, was annulled. The department took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal afirmed the finding that the notice dated August 30, 1968, was clearly ...
Kunwar Gopi Chand Vs. Nanak Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All8
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a defendant's application in revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad decreeing the plaintiff-opposite party's suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. 2. On 17th December, 1949, Gopi Chand, the defendant-appellant executed a registered mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party under which he mortgaged the house in dispute for a consideration of rupees 50,000/-. The mortgage-deed (Ext. 8) contained a recital that the possession of the house was transferred to the mortgagee. The defendant took the house on rent from the mortgagee and executed a registered rent note (Ext. 5) in favour of the mortgagee. The rent note was for a period of three years on a rent of Rs. 500/- per mensem. On 14-12-1964, the mortgagor executed another registerd rent note (Ext. 1) for payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem for a period of one year. On the expiry...
Nirmal Chand Vs. Gaya Prasad Dikshit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All54
S.J. Hyder, J.1. The only question which calls for determination in this second appeal is one of limitation. The relevant facts in the context of which this question requires to be answered, have been finally determined by the final court of facts. The said facts could not be and have not been rightly disputed before me.2. Shortly stated the dispute between the parties relates to a small portion of a house. This house originally belonged to one Dr. Rama Shankar. Defendant respondent No. 1 Gaya Prasad Dixit, hereinafter be referred to as Dixit, is the grandson of the real sister of Behari Lal, Dr. Rama Shanker is the son of Behari Lal. Dixit was living in the disputed portion of the house, which consists of a room, a kitchen, a verandah and a Kothari. Some dispute arose between Dr. Rama Shanker on the one hand and Dixit on the other, whereupon Dr. Rama Shanker filed original suit 521 of 1957 for possession over the disputed portion of the house. This suit was compromised and in terms of...
Phool Chand Vs. Lala Neem Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All539
Mahavir Singh, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The house of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and the shop in question belonging previously to defendant-respondent No. 2 were contiguous. The water of the roof of the shop flowed through the house of the plaintiff-respondent and thus she had acquired the right of easement of discharge of water. It so happened that the defendant No. 2 transferred this shop to the defendant No. 1, who is now the appellant before this Court on 30-3-65 for Rs. 2500/-. Further the ventilators of the house of the respondent open on the roof of the shop and he had acquired a right of easement for light and air. There was also alleged to be a joint wall between the shop and the house.3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that according to the customary law of pre-emption, he being a Shafi-i-Sharik (for sharing joint wall) and also Shafi-i-Khalit for the easement of the light and air, and for easement of discharging of water by th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neemar Ram Badlu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(All)253; [1980]122ITR68(All)
M.B. Farooqi, J.1. In compliance with the order of this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly, the 'Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has submitted a statement of the case and referred the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any evidence on record for the Tribunal's finding that the assessee should be assessed only on the difference of the peak unaccounted money from year to year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material in support of the Tribunal's decisions : (a) that the additions in respect of extra profit in each of the years under appeal would be nil in the years in which the addition on the basis of the difference in the peak unaccounted money used from year to year exceeds the extra profit : and (b) that where the extra profit addition is more than the additionon account of the difference in peak credits, the bigger of...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR589(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The question of law referred for our consideration is: ' Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no gift-tax is leviable in the present case ' 2. The assessee is a HUF and the relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The assessee-HUF had 78 acres of agricultural land and the same wasassessed as part of its wealth for the assessment year 1970-71. During the year in question Ram Kishan, the karta, executed six different documents called deeds of gifts in favour of each of his five sons and one widow of his pre-deceased son. The gift deeds were registered on 21st April, 1970. As a result of this an area of only 11 acres was left with the karta. The GTO effected the assessment treating the entire value of the subject-matter to tax. On appeal, the AAC annulled the assessment. The revenue moved a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sort of family settlement by partial partition. By this the co-sharers in the family were a...
Dayal Singh Kulfiwale Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC374(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee is a dealer of kulfi. The assessee's contention was that kulfi, being a milk product, was exempt from tax. The Judge (Revisions) had held that kulfi is a cooked food and not milk food. This has led to the reference of three questions to this Court.(1) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, kulfi is cooked food ?(2) Whether kulfi is milk product and exempt under Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956?(3) Whether kulfi is taxable under Notification No. ST-775/X- 900(16)-1964 dated 16th February, 1965 ?2. Although, the process of manufacture of kulfi is not set out in the revisional order, it is detailed in the statement of the case. Parties have not disputed the method of manufacture of kulfi as set out in the statement of the case. Kulfi is prepared from milk. The milk is first heated till it becomes viscid. Then sugar, dry fruits and essence are mixed in this and the paste is filled in small containers. These containers ar...
Maikoo Vs. Uma Shankar Bajpai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All551
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal is by a tenant against whom a decree for ejectment was passed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the lower appellate court. The conclusion which found favour with the courts below was to the effect that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent.2. It is not disputed that the defendant appellant was of unsound mind when the suit was filed. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application for appointment of a guardian for the appellant. In this connection, it was proposed that Smt. Brij Rani, wife of the appellant, be appointed as guardian. The counsel for the proposed guardian had stated before the trial court that he had no objection to his client being appointed as guardian. Accordingly, the trial court appointed Smt. Brij Rani as guardian for the appellant.3. The appointment of a guardian for a person of unsound mind is regulated by the procedure contained in Order XXXII of the Civil P. C. By virtue of Rule 15 of the said order,...
Budh Sen Vs. Smt. Rahiman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All549
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal who is the landlord of the premises in dispute.2. The appellant brought the suit against the defendant for her ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent as also for recovery of the amount due as arrears of rent. He had further claimed damages for use and occupation of the premises in question for the period of the pendency of the suit as also future interest.3. The trial court decreed the suit on the finding that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent and was consequently liable for ejectment. It negatived the objection of the defendant that the notice (Ext. 1) under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid.4. The defendant-respondent appealed. The lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court on the question of there being a default by the tenant and maintained the decree as regards the recovery of arrears of rent for the period in question and of the amount of interest thereon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »