Allahabad Court April 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.
Pramod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1979
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1094
ORDERV.N. Varma, J.1. This Revision is directed against an order dated 5-2-77 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant (Pramod Kumar) under Section 363, I.P.C.2. The person alleged to have been kidnapped in this case was a boy named Anil Kumar. He lived with his father (Tara Chand) in Mohalla Khurburra, Dehradun. The applicant worked as a driver of one Lakshmi Chand Garg who was a neighbour of Tara Chand. He, therefore, knew Anil Kumar very well. Co-accused Netrapal often visited the applicant and, therefore, he also came to know Anil Kumar. At the relevant time (Jan. 1974) Anil Kumar was a student, but he was not well off in his studies. In his spare time, which he had enough at his disposal, he often met the applicant and co-accused Netrapal. It is said that both these persons often persuaded Anil Kumar to leave his house with cash and ornaments and enter into a business partnership with Netrapal's maternal uncle in Dis...
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC496(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The point involved in this appeal is short. The assessee manufacturescamphor, distilled turpentine oil, camphor oil, etc. It is registered as adealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act. Itsought the opinion of the Commissioner of Sales Tax regarding the rate of taxpayable by it on these sales under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Commissionerof Sales Tax has taken the view that only questions arising under the U.P.Sales Tax Act can be referred and answered under Section 35. Thus, the onlyquestion in this appeal is as to whether an assessee can ask for the opinionof the Commissioner as regards the appropriate rate of tax imposable under theCentral Sales Tax Act. The answer to this question depends on theinterpretation to be put on Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 9(2) of the Central Act runs as under:9. (2) Subject tothe other provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, theauthorities for the time being empowere...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC360(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Sales Tax Officer has imposed penalty under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. At the time the penalty was imposed, there was no provision corresponding to Section 15-A(1)(a) in Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Parliament amended Section 9, and introduced Sub-section (2A) with retrospective effect, as a result of which, the penalty could be justified by reference to the State Act also. Under Section 16-A, penalty can be imposed in the various circumstances set out therein, in case the assessee does not have reasonable cause for doing the omissions contemplated by Section 15-A(1)(a). In the present case, the assessee had failed to deposit the tax along with the return, which is one circumstance in which penalty can be imposed under Section 15-A(1)(a). The revising authority has found that the assessee was claiming an adjustment of an amount under the bona fide belief that it was due to him and, as such, did not deposit the tax. In his view,...
Desraj and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All328
H.N. Seth, J.1. These two first appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act are directed against a common award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jhansi, in two claim petition Nos. 57 of 1970 and 70 of 1970 on 8-4-1974, and they can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. On 18-4-1970 at about 5.30 or 6 p.m. bus No. USG. 4587 which was being driven by Mohan met with serious accident near village Bachkaoli. In that accident two passengers viz. Sita Ram and Radhey sustained fatal injuries. It was claimed that in that accident Smt. Muliya wife of Sita Ram and Smt. Chitiya daughter-in-law and Hira Lal grandson of Radhey who had been travelling in the bus also received injuries.3. Whereas claim petition No. 57 of 1970 was filed by Smt, Muliya, Kumari Kesar, Ashok Kumar and Pappu claiming Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Sita Ram and Rs. 5000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by Smt. Muliya, the claimmants in claim petition No...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shakti Lace Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC301(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The revising authority has referred the following question of law for opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the labels sold by the assessee were taxable as laces under Notification No. ST-3612/X-900(21)-69 dated 1st July, 1969 2. This reference is being treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.3. The revising authority has found that labels sold were in the shape of tape containing the name of the firm, which stitches them to articles such as ready-made garments and garments made by tailors. In this view, he held that labels sold by the assessee were laces within the meaning of Notification No. ST-3612/X-900(21)-69 dated 1st July, 1969. The meaning ascribed to the word 'lace' in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language is 'a netlike ornamental fabric of threads, a cord or string for holding or drawing together two flaps, being passed through holes in their edges, ornamental cord or braid, a small amount...
Ram Charan Mowar Vs. Ved Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All27
ORDERA.N. Varma, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-76 passed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri allowing the Revision filed by the defendant-opposite party and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant for ejectment and for arrears of rent from a certain accommodation, which had been let out to the defendant opposite party.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are these. The plaintiff-applicant filed an application under Section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file a suit for eviction of the defendant-opposite party on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his personal use. After considerable litigation, the plaintiff-applicant was granted permission by the State Government under Section 7-F of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter, the plaintiff-applicant filed the present suit on the basis of the permission granted to him under Section 3 of the afor...
Raj Kumar Soni Vs. Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All370
ORDERAmitav Banerji, J.1. This Revision is directed against an order of the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, dated 31-5-1978, directing the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 lacs within sixty days for setting aside an ex parte decree and restoring the suit to its original number. The applicant was the defendant in the suit and an ex parte decree had been passed against him. He had made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and had shown cause for not being present onthe date when the decree was passed.The court below after considering thematerial on record came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause forthe absence of the applicant on the daythe ex parte decree was passed. Thecourt below allowed the application forsetting aside the ex parte decree, butimposed a condition directing the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lacs outof the decretal amount in court within60 days. The present revision has beenfiled only against the imposition of this,term.2. Learned coun...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vijay and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC161(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee filed an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground that the admitted amount of tax had not been deposited. The view taken that the amount of tax had not been paid was based on the consideration that although the assessee had paid the tax admitted by him, but not the interest due thereon. The revising authority has taken the view that although interest becomes a part of the tax under Section 8(1-C), the requirements of Section 9(l)(a), which applies in the present case, are met in case the assessee deposits the tax admitted by him in his returns or before the assessing authority, and the failure to deposit the interest on the tax is not fatal to the entertainability of the appeal.2. The view taken by the revising authority appears to be correct. Sri V.D. Singh, appearing on behalf of the department, strenuously contended that the tax, which has to be deposited by an assessee before filing an appeal is an amount which is equal to the tax plus interest accr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chiranji Lal Shanti Swarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR651(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the year 1970-71, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was there any material in support of the finding that penalty was not leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in support of the concealed item of income of Rs. 23,500 ?'2. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee which was a partnership firm, returned an income of Rs. 17,480. The ITO did not accept the return and made some additions. The assessee went up in appeal, but failed. The assessee then went up to the Tribunal. Ultimately, the additions of Rs. 23,500 on account of unexplained retirement of certain hundis was upheld by the Tribunal. Other additions were deleted by the Tribunal. During these proceedings, the ITO referred the case to the IAC for drawing up penalty proceedings. The IAC issued the requisite notice and after hearing the assessee imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,840 on t...
Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR806(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This is a reference under Section 24 of the U. P. Agrl. I.T. Act, 1949. The Board of Revenue has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether the sale of timber from the planted groves prior to the introduction of Section 6-A to the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act was liable to be assessed as agricultural income under the Act ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount representing the sale proceeds of planted grove and trees was a capital receipt and as such not taxable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act and, 3. Whether, on the true interpretation of Section 8 of the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, the income from the property which is held under trust wholly for religious and charitable purposes has to be included in the total income and then a relief is to be granted under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 or is it to be excluded altogether from...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »