Allahabad Court February 1979 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Firm Chhitarmal Ram Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All294
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. This revision by the defendant has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge because he entertained doubt on the question as to whether the decision rendered in Prabhu Lal v. Union of India (1970 All LJ 28) has been rightlydistinguished by learned Single Judges in Babu Ram Kanhaiya Lal v. Union of India (1974 All LJ 912) and Kanpur Leather Corpn. v. Union of India, in Second Appeal No. 4202 of 1965, decided on October 24, 1973 (All.).2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision, are that the plaintiff-respondent consigned a wagon load of 675 tins of mustard oil from Belanganj to Cuttack at railway risk. The packing undisputedly was defective and at the destination some of the tins despatched were found to be damaged and partly empty while some others were found to be entirely empty. There being a short delivery of the consignment, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- against the defendant ap-plicant. The claim was resist...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1095
S. Malik, J.1. This is an application in revision by Badri Prasad against the judgment and order dated 8-9-1977 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, dismissing his appeal and upholding his conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 16 read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. As usual, the revision application came up before a learned Judge of this Court who, while admitting it, directed that the case be listed before a larger Bench, as may be ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for reconsidering the decision recorded by another learned Judge of this Court in Ajodhiya Prasad v. State 1977 All Cr C 195 for reason given by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. The learned Sessions Judge did not follow the said decision.3. It was held in Ajodhiya Prasad v. State (supra) that mixture of mustard oil ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Maitra Vs. Shyam Behari Mehra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All379
S.J. Hyder, J.1. These connected appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, dated 22nd of Aug. 1969 passed in Original Suit No. 6 of 1964. In order to appreciate the facts of the case, it is necessary to give the following pedigree which is not disputed by the parties:-- DEBI DAYAL ______________________________|______________________________ | | Mahadeo Prasad Athwaria = Smt. Bhagwanta Baldeo Prasad Athwaria (died 1909) Kunwar (died 1911) Smt. Basata | (died 1944) | Kunwar (died | | 22.7.61) | | __________|______________________ __________________|_____________________ | | | | | Tulsa Kunwar Ram Dev Durga Dev Bisheshwar Prasad Ishri Prasad = Purushottam (died Harichand | | Das Childless) | | | _____|_________ _____________| ___________|_______________________________________ |_______ | | | | | | | | | Mukund Mathura Radhey Sita Ram Jamuna Din Dayal Ram Kishan Kanhaiya Jwala Lal Das Shyam =Vimla Pd. Das Lal Prasad =Basant Devi | Devi |...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Dharamdas Naresh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC289(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee dealt in ready-made garments and iron netting. During the assessment year 1967-68, its turnover was taxed at the rate of six per cent. The assessment order was passed on 27th September, 1968. A copy of this order as required by Rule 45 was received by the assessee on 2nd April, 1969. The assessee applied on 4th March, 1972, for rectification of assessment order on the ground that the rate of tax on the turnover of iron netting should have been three per cent, and not six per cent. The Sales Tax Officer counting limitation from 27th September, 1968, the date when the order was passed, rejected the application as being time-barred. An appeal was filed by the assessee, and his contention was that the limitation should be counted not from the date when the order was passed by the assessing authority but from the date it was served on him. This contention was accepted by the appellate authority, who remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer. The Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal Harbilas Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All267; [1979]44STC84(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. The dealer Sri Harbilas carried on business in the name and style M/s. Ram Dayal Harbilas and dealt in vegetable ghee and some other commodities. For the assessment year 1957-58 he filed quarterly returns showing his gross and net turnover as Rupees 19,17,223 and Rs. 7,16,936 respectively. However, the books filed by the dealer disclosed a gross turnover of Rs. 19,08,223 which included the two amounts of Rs. 3,80,848 and Rs. 6,52,656 representing the turnover of vegetable oil purchased in Uttar Pradesh and that imported by the dealer from outside the State respectively. A scrutiny of the account books of the dealer further showed that he had, during the year, purchased vegetable oil worth Rupees 4,53,011 in Uttar Pradesh and had imported vegetable oil worth Rs. 6,39,978 from outside the State (bulk purchases being from Rohtak Industries Limited, Dalmianagar, Bihar). The dealer further filed a list of four traders namely Babu Mian Ibrahim, M/s. Bharat Trading Company, M/...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Sahai Ghisa Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR338(All)
Satish Chanpra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. Its accounting period was Dussehra to Dussehra. For the assessment year 1972-73, the accounting period ended on October 18, 1971. The assessee filed a return for the period October 21, 1970, to October 18, 1971, which was returnable for the assessment year 1972-73. 2. On December 20, 1971, one of its partners, Ghisa Ram, died. The firm came to an end and was succeeded by another firm. The new firm adopted the financial year as its previous year. A return was filed on behalf of the old firm for the period October 19, 1971, to December 20, 1971, and a third return was filed on behalf of the new firm for the period December 21, 1971, to March 31, 1972. Before the ITO, counsel appearing for the assessee conceded that the income for the period October 21, 1970, to March 31, 1972, may be assessed for the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO acted accordingly and passed a single assessment order for the entire period for which...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Metal Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR279(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law which requires our consideration is :'Whether the revenue could validly rectify the assessment order under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1967-68. For this year, the return of income was due to be filed by September 30, 1967. It was actually filed on March 21, 1968. In due course, the ITO completed the assessment by an order dated August 5, 1968. In the assessment form and the demand notice a sum of Rs. 2,658 was shown as payable as interest under Section 139(1) of the Act for delay in submission of returns.3. Subsequently, the ITO served upon the assessee a notice for rectification of the assessment order under Section 154. He wanted to add a sum of Rs. 10,074 on account of interest on the footing that the interest charged originally was by mistake wrongly calculated. The assessee filed objections, which were repelled and the assessment order was suitably rectified. The assessee went up in a...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalsukhrai Jaidayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: [1979]117ITR466(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The first two questions referred to us relate to the allowability of Mandir, Gaushala and Dharmada payments. These questions were decided by a Full Bench of our court in Thakur Das Shyam Sundar v. Addl. CIT : [1974]93ITR27(All) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. : [1979]116ITR60(SC) . In view of these decisions, the first two questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee.2. The third question relates to the expenditure of Rs. 2,000 spent on the construction in renovation of bath rooms, urinals and fitting of a gate and widening of a gate. The Tribunal held that this was an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee was carrying on business in rented premises. He was a tenant of 40 to 50 years' standing. The bath rooms and urinals required face lifting. He spent this sum of Rs. 2,000 for renovating the bath rooms and urinals and partly for fitting a gate. The Tribunal has hel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(All)137; [1979]118ITR770(All); [1979]2TAXMAN249(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a co-operative society carrying on the business of supply of sugarcane. For the assessment year 1973-74, it claimed exemption of its income from securities under Clause (c) of Section 80P(2) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the assessee. The question of law referred for our opinion is whether the income of the assessee by way of interest in Government securities is exempt under that provision. 2. Clause (c) of Section 80P(2) exempts income of co-operative societies to the extent mentioned in that section if the profits or gains are 'attributable' to the activity in which the co-operative society is engaged. The findings are that under statutory provisions the co-operative society is bound to invest 25% of its profits in Government securities. The assessee complied with this provision. In the process, it earned interest on these investments. The question is whether such profits or gains are attributable to the activity of supply...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Swasthya Adhikari Vs. Naim Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1223
P.N. Bakshi, J.1. Nairn Chand was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad for an offence under Sections 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but has been released on probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed to execute a bond for a period of ten years to appear before the court if and when called upon to do so to take sentence of imprisonment on default. Aggrieved, thereby the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad filed an application under Section 377/378 Cr. P.C. for leave to Appeal. Leave was granted by this Court on 16th Oct. 1978. In these circumstances, this appeal has come up before me for decision.2. None of the parties have argued this appeal on merits. It have been addressed only on the question of sentence and therefore, I shall confine myself to the point argued before me. The proved facts in the case are that the accused was selling mixed milk of cow and buffalo at about 1.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »