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.
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow Vs. Chunni Lal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(All)240; [1979]117ITR976(All)
SATISH CHANDRA C.J. - One Puttu Lal was assessed to income-tax as HUF. He was the karta of the HUF. He died on May 4, 1968. The ITO having come to know that some had escaped assessment in the assessment of the HUF for the year 1963-64, issued a notice to Chunni Lal, legal heir of Puttu Lal, deceased. This notice was served on Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal filed a return in the status of HUF signing the return as karta of the HUF. The ITO revised the assessment. The assessee went up in appeal, but failed. The assessee then approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the notice was issued by the ITO from HUF file; that the notice was addressed to Chunni Lal as legal heir of Puttu Lal, deceased; and that Chunni Lal understood the notice to be in connection with the income of the HUF, which is evident from the fact that he filed the return as karta of the HUF in response to the aforesaid notice. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the notice was invalid. The service of a valid notice was a c...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR633(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessment years are 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The relevant valuation dates were December 31, 1956, December 31, 1957, and December 31, 1958. At the instance of the Commissioner, this court asked the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the amount of Rs. 42,45,692 from the assessment under the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The relevant and material facts in relation to this case can be shortly stated. It appears that the assessee-company entered into some settlement with the Investigation Commission. The Investigation Commission determined the concealed income of the assessee at Rs. 50,40,086 for the assessment years 1940-41 to 1947-48. The break-up of the said amount was as under:Rs.(1) Inflated expenses on coal25,000(2) Inflated expenses on wages10,28,107(3) In...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Madan Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC207(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 circumstances of the case, khukri can be deemed to be covered by the notification dated 1st June, 1963 ?2. The assessee manufactures and sells khukri. In the assessment year 1967-68 relevant to this reference, the assessee claimed that khukri did not fall within the purview of Notification No. ST-1738/X-1012-1963 dated 1st June, 1963, of which item No. 1 was to the following effect:All arms including rifles, revolvers, pistols and ammunition for the same.3. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the assessee's contention and taxed the turnover of khukri at the rate of 10 per cent treating them to be arms. The appeal filed by the assessee succeeded and the revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was dismissed.4. The entry has already been extracted. The words 'including rifles, etc.' indicate that the various items specified after the word 'including' do not ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. the Cantonment Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC40(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 Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Meerut, was legally justified in holding for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 that the Cantonment Board, Meerut, was not a 'dealer' within the definition of Section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act in connection with the turnover of sales amounting to Rs. 33,814.85, Rs. 27,830 and Rs. 33,875 respectively for these years 2. Although the question framed relates to three assessment years, viz., 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, a separate reference has been made for each of these years. The present reference is being treated as a reference in relation to the year 1965-66. The dispute relates to the sale of old fallen trees, fruits, grass, night-soil, water and other materials made by the Cantonment Board, Meerut, as also the supply of cement and iron t...
Gopi Nath Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ414
ORDERS.C. Mathur, J.1. The present revision is directed against the orders passed by the Courts below refusing to drop or quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Sitapur. The applicant's plea is that on the same set of facts on which the present prosecution is based he was prosecuted earlier and was convicted and, therefore, the second prosecution on the same set of facts is barred. In support of this plea the applicant has relied upon Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and Sub-section (1) of Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to narrate the history of the case.2. The applicant is a dealer in food grains and has his shop in Kesriganj within the Circle of P. Laharpur, District Sitapur. On 21-5-1971 Sri Yogendra Bux Singh, Food Inspector, visited his shop suspecting adulteration in gram wanted to t...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Farrukhabad Electric Supply Co. L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR404(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. M/s. Farrukhabad Electric Supply Company, the assessee, is a 'Priority Industry' within the meaning of Section 80B(7) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It claimed that it is entitled to a deduction from its income at the rate of 8% of its profits and gains attributable to its activities as a 'priority industry'. The ITO accepted the statement, except in respect of a sum of Rs. 46,320 which was the income of the assessec under Section 41(2) of the Act in relation to the sale of machineries pertaining to its business as priority industry. This view was accepted by the AAC. On appeal, the Tribunal reversed the view. It held that the assets sold, in respect of which the income under Section 41(2) was computed, were part of the assessee's plant and machinery used in the activities of generating electricity and so the income could not but be attributed to the profits and gains of the assessee's business as a priority industry.2. At the instance of the CIT, the Tribunal referred ...
Kailash Singh Rajput Vs. Ram Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All110
ORDERK.N. Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C.filed by the plaintiff-applicant against the order of the Additional District Judge, Agra, dated 23rd April, 1977, rejecting the plaintiff-applicant's review application. 2. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-opposite party in the court of the Munsif. In Oct. 1972 the suit was transferred to the file of the Judge, Small Cause Court in view of Section 9 of the Civil Laws (Amendment) Act. 1972. The Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of arrears of rent but it decreed the suit for defendant's ejectment. Both the parties, the plaintiff as well as the defendant, filed revision before the District Judge. On 22nd March, 1976, the Additional District Judge allowed both the revisions and set aside the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, and remanded the suit to the Additional Mun...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kedari Lal Barsaiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC429(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The additional revising authority has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, kachcha naryal is fresh fruit or dry fruit for purposes of sales tax 2. The controversy between the assessee and the department is as to whether 'kachcha naryal' is fresh fruit or dry fruit. The Judge (Revisions) has found that 'kachcha naryal' is sold in wet condition and is liable to decomposition like any other fresh fruit. Kachcha naryal is a well-known commodity and although it is not found in this State, it is brought from other States and is sold in green raw condition. There is no element of dryness at the time when it is sold. On 'kachcha naryal' drying up it is sold as 'gari ka gola'. Kachcha naryal is obviously a fresh fruit and is exempt under Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956.3. The question referred is answered by saying 'kachcha naryal' is a fresh fruit and is exempt from tax. As ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Merit Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC142(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee deals in leather, leather belt and leather cutting. Leather belts were brought to tax at the rate of 6 per cent on the footing that they fall within the ambit of the words 'mill-stores and hardware' as occurring at item No. 3 of Notification No. ST-4124/X- 950(12)-1967 dated 31st July, 1967. The contention of the assessee that they should be taxed as leather goods was accepted on appeal and the revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax failed.2. The dispute in this reference is as to whether leather beltings are comprised in the term 'mill-stores and hardware'. The notification of 31st July, 1967, has been issued under Section 3-A and item No. 3 thereof is to the following effect:Mill-stores and hardware.3. The import of this entry has been considered on a number of occasions by this Court, viz., in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Aftab Husain Imdad Husain [1970] 25 S.T.C. 471, Fine Trading Corporation v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, ...
Baboo Lal Vs. Dakhini Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All547
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. This is plaintiff's application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge and to restore the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-opposite party. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no title to the house in question and he was not entitled to rent and that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit. On revision-application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act by the defendant, the District Judge set aside the trial court's decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this revision.3. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in re-appraising the evidence and interfering with the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »