Allahabad Court October 1979 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.
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR24(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 2,89,929 from Matkhera Farm is non-agricultural in character and is allowable as a revenue loss in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1959-60 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 7,462 on the construction of ' Molasses Fund Quarters ' is allowable as revenue expenditure ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amalgamation expenses of Rs. 7,455 were allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1959-60 ' 2. So far as questions Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, we need not set out the facts relating thereto because they stand covered by a decision of this court in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1957-58 ; whereas the assessment year involved in...
Kedar Prasad Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All85
A.N. Varma, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 28-4-1961, executed by one Hira Lal (defendant third set in the suit) in favour of the defendant appellant (arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit as defendant first set) to the extent of the 4/5th share in the shop mentioned in the plaint and in respect of which the aforesaid sale deed was executed.2. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs appealed. The lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs-respondents' suit for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of arrears of rent.3. Briefly stated, the plaint case was that one Madho Prasad had five sons, namely, Sheo Prasad, Sheo Sagar, Ram Sagar, Ganga Sagar and Dal Sagar. Defendant's Nos. 10 and 11 are Ganga Sagar and Dal Sagar aforesaid. The shop in dispute was the ancestral property of defendants Nos. 2 to 12. According to the pe...
Smt. Indrapati Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All186
ORDERR.S. Singh, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30-6-78, by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed.2. The facts of the case in brief are that in the basic year khatauni, on khata No. 116, the name of Indrapati; on khata No. 24, the name of Ram Adhar and Indrapati, on khata No. 46, the name of Baba, Gangadeen, Gingen, Girja Shanker, and Indrapati and on khata No. 234, the name of Ram Adhar and Ram Dular were recorded as tenure-holders. An objection was filed under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Girja Singh, respondent No. 3 claiming to be sole tenure-holder and denying the title of Smt. Indrapati on the ground that she had remarried and her name has been wrongly recorded in the revenue papers, which should be expunged. Another objection was filed by Smt. Indrapati, the petitioner, claiming to be co-tenure-holder of all t...
Mohammad Riaz Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ369
ORDERPrem Prakash, J.1. Mohd Riaz and Babu Lal have obtained these revisions against the order of III Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, maintaining their convictions under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 Penal Code. K, K. Srivastava, The Excise inspector, was however; acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. They had been tried along with Mohd. Iliyas. partner of firm M/s. Mahd. Iliyas and Brothers, who was also acquitted by the trial Court.2. Briefly stated the charge against them was that they entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Central Excise Department in the course of which they caused loss to the Department by evading the payment of Excise duty in a sum of Rupees 2,53,000.00 and odd payable on non-duty paid tobacco. The Tobacco was shown to have been despatched in 13 consignments to M/s. Babu Lal of Kumher district Bharatpur (Rajasthan). The consignor Mohd. Riaz had moved 13 applications for removal of Tobacco in form AR 3 in triplicate to K. K. Srivastava for issue of...
Lit Light and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(All)76; [1982]136ITR513(All)
K.N. Seth, J. 1. On December 22, 1974, the premises of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 417, 441, 574 and 866 of 1975 and on September 2, 1975, the premises of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 920 of 1975 and 113 of 1976, were searched by the I.T. dept. and account books, cash, bank drafts, jewellery and certain documents were seized. The searches were conducted at the business premises and godowns of firms and the residence of persons connected with Haji Abdul Hameed, Mutawalli of M/s. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works, which is a waqf carrying on business of manufacture and sale of biris.2. During the course of hearing, the petitioners challenged the legality of the search and seizure principally on the ground that respondent No. 1 had no material in his possession which could justify the proceeding under Section 132(1) of the I.T. Act, and in any case no reasonable person could, on the basis of the material available, form a reasonable belief that conditions necessary for directi...
Maharani Raj Laxmi Kumari Devi Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR1002(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This is a composite reference at the instance of the assessee as well as the department, and the questions referred are :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the value of the share of the lineal descendant of the deceased in the joint family property was includible under Section 4(1)(c) for rate purposes ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the estate duty chargeable under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act was not deductible for computing the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased ' 2. Maharaja Pateshwari Prasad Singh died on 30th June, 1964, leaving behind his widow, Maharani Raj Laxmi Devi, the accountable person, and an adopted son as his legal heirs. The Maharaja was the karta of the joint Hindu family which owned a number of properties including Neel Bagh Palace at the time of his death. In the present reference we are concerned with the incl...
Ram Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(All)74; [1980]124ITR157(All); [1980]3TAXMAN371(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 35,000 gifted by Smt. Prakash Kaur to the HUF is not a valid gift in the eye of Hindu law and as such the interest of Rs. 5,250 paid in regard to the said amount by the assessee-firm to the HUF was not allowable?'2. The reference is concerned with the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee is a registered firm earning income from the distributorship of Bata Shoe Company. In the previous year it had taken a loan from the HUF, Ram Lal & Sons, and paid interest amounting to Rs. 14,596. Initially, the HUF had a capital of Rs. 1,50,734 as on 31st March, 1965. This was distributed amongst the coparceners and Smt. Prakash Kaur by metes and bounds with the result that the HUF had no amount to its credit as on March 31, 1966. Thereafter, the capital of the HUF w...
Ramjiwan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR319(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions for opinion of this court:'1. Whether, after having given a finding that there was no defect in the account books maintained by the assessee, the Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the accounts and making an addition of Rs. 10,000 towards the trading results by its order dated November 12, 1974?'2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding an addition of Rs. 10,000 '2. The assessment year in question is 1970-71. In that year, the assessee was engaged in the business of supplying firewood to different sugar mills. His trading account showed a gross profit of Rs. 61,078, on sales of Rs. 12,66,191 giving a rate of 4.8 per cent. against 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. disclosed in the earlier assessment years. The ITO found various defects in the assessee's account and rejected it. One of the reasons for rejection of the accounts was that the assessee had claime...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jamuna Dass Nemi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(All)75; [1980]121ITR777(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Tribunal has referred two questions of law for our opinion:'1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to the purchase price in respect of goods purchased for trading or manufacturing and in thus deleting the sum of Rs. 28,150 added by the Income-tax Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the payments made by the assessee were not protected by rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?'2. So far as the first question is concerned it is covered by the authority of this court in the case of U.P. Hardware Store v. CIT : [1976]104ITR664(All) , where it has been held that the word 'expenditure' includes expenses for purchase of goods purchased for trading or manufacturing. This being so, the Tribunal erred in (sic) the sum of Rs. 28,150 added by the ITO under Section 40A(3)...
Gita Ram Vs. Official Receiver, Agra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All126
B.N. Sapru, J. 1. Second appeal from order No. 6 of 1971 is directed against the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1970 arising out of Miscellaneous Case No. 95 of 1966 and was filed by the Official Receiver and Second Appeal from order No. 7 of 1971 has been filed against the decision in civil appeal No. 109 of 1970 in Misc. Case No. 95 of 1966 and was filed by Gita Ram who is the appellant in both the present appeals.2. The facts leading to these appeals are very simple. The appellant Gita Ram was carrying on ancestral business. Banarsi Das one was indebted to one Babu Lal for a sum of Rs. 900/- on the basis of a pronote dated 7-1-1966. He was also indebted to Gita Ram Appellant on the basis of a pronote dated 11-2-1963. Banarsi Das was also indebted to several other persons. He owed Rs. 2700/- to Bohre Basdeo Lal, Rs. 100/- to Ramlal, Rs. 150/- to Rajaram and Rs. 200/- to Madan Gopal. All these debts related to the period much prior to the debts owed to Gita Ram and Babu Lal.3. On...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »