Allahabad Court July 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Alsbah Enterprises
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC283(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The short question that arises for decision in this revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, is as to whether the assessee is a manufacturer of mutton tallow. The assessee purchases mutton tallow and what he does is that after purchasing mutton tallow from butchers and, after removing dust, bone-pieces, etc., therefrom, offers it for sale. According to the assessing authority, the assessee is a manufacturer of mutton tallow and on sales of the same was liable to be taxed as such. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, took the same view but, in revision, the revising authority has taken a contrary view. According to the learned revising authority, the mere filtering of mutton tallow did not change or alter the commodity in any manner whatsoever and hence the assessee could not be regarded as a manufacturer of mutton tallow within the meaning of Section 2(e-l) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. After hearing the counsel for the p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hari Om Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR759(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, made this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian. I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter called ' the Act '). The questions referred soliciting the opinion of this court are as under :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice dated December 20, 1956, under section 22(2) read with Section 25(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was invalid and, therefore, whether the entire assessment proceeding taken subsequently was also invalid ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment for the assessment year 1957-58 made on the basis of the return of income filed on April 9, 1958, was invalid ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant ; Commissioner cancelling the order refusing registr...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Kundan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR848(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in disallowing Rs. 10,050 under Section 40(c) of the Act, out of remunerationpaid to the directors of the assessee-company, for the assessment year 1964-65 ?'2. The assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessment year in question is the year 1964-65, being the first year of assessment. The company was formed for the purposes of taking over the business of one of its promoters, Seth Puran Chand, who was running a business in the name of Kundan Sugar Mills. During the previous year, the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 3,500 to Puran Chand, its managing director, and an amount of Rs. 2,500 p.m. to Ram Niranjan, director-in-charge. The I...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Dayal Singh Kulfiwala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1979
Reported in: [1982]49STC295(All)
Prem Prakash, J.1. This rule in reSectionision has been obtained by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow, under Section 11(1) of the Act to set aside the order of the Judge (Revisions) exempting the turnover of kulfi and lassi in terms of the notification dated 31st March, 1956, issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. In List II at serial No. 10, 'milk and milk products such as chhena, dahi, khoa, butter and cream but excluding (1) products sold in sealed containers; and (2) sweetmeats' were exempted from payment of tax. The item at serial No. 10 is illustrative and not exhaustive. Kulfi and lassi in the common parlance and having regard to their components are milk products and, therefore, they fall within the purview of the exemption given by the State Government by virtue of the notification dated 31st March, 1956.2. It so happened that on 1st December, 1973, the State Government in exercise of the powers und...
Tarai Development Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR342(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' A ') has at the instance of the assessee referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income derived by the assessee from processing of seeds was not entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 '2. The assessee is an incorporated company and the case relates to the first year of assessment. It returned an income of Rs. 47,726 and claimed exemptions under Sections 80-I and 80J of the Act. The exemptions claimed were disallowed by the ITO. The AAC allowed the exemption claimed under Section 80J, but refused that claimed under Section 80-I. The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was followed by a cross-objection by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to relief under Section 80J, but allowed exem...
Garg Association P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(All)206; [1979]119ITR705(All); [1979]2TAXMAN461(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee, a private limited company, was manufacturing electronic wires in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72. Dr. Jagmohan Garg, who was president of the company, was an expert in this line of production. There were two other directors of this company. One was Sri N. L. Garg, who was the uncle of Dr. Jagmohan Garg and the other, Smt. Leelavati Garg, who was appointed as director from April, 1971, In the accounting period ending 31st March, 1971, the assessee-company paid an amount of Rs. 38,400 to Dr. Jagmohan Garg, Rs. 10,200 to Sri N. L. Garg and Rs. 9,600 to Smt. Leelavati Garg. The remuneration paid to these directors totalled Rs. 58,200 while the sales were to the tune of Rs. 6,30,431. The assessee claimed deduction of these amounts in the computation of its income, but the ITO on the view that the remuneration paid was abnormally high, took recourse to the provisions of Section 40(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and disallowed an amount o...
Shervani Sugar Syndicate Ltd., Allahabad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All394
K.N. Seth, J. 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause '3' of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, the Central Government issued Notification No. GSR 484 (E)/ESS. Com/ Sugarcane dated 1st October, 1978 fixing the basic minimum price of sugarcane for the crushing season 1978-79 at Rs. 10/-per quintal linked to a recovery of 8.5% or below with a premium of 11.7647 paise per quintal for every 0.1% increase in recovery over 8.5%. The notification also specified in the schedule annexed thereto the minimum price payable by the owners of the vacuum pan process sugar factories for the aforesaid crushing season. Different prices have been fixed for different sugar factories for sugarcane that they may purchase. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification both with regard to the fixation of the basic minimum price of sugar-cane and the different prices for the petitioner companies specified in the schedule. In some of the petitions the validity of the order fixing th...
The Board of Revenue, U.P. Vs. Electronic Industries of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All1
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. The questions referred to us for opinion under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act are:--1. Whether an instrument of simple mortgage (Mortgage without possession of immovable property situated in an area to which the U. P. Town Improvement Act 1919 (VIII of 1919) as amended by the Local Self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966 (XXIX of 1966) has been made applicable) is a deed of transfer of immovable property within the meaning of Section 67-H of the said Act? 2. Whether a public officer is barred from impounding (a document) under Section 33 and the Collector is barred from imposing any deficit duty and penalty under Section 40 and realising the same under Section 48 of the Stamp Act on a deed of transfer of immovable property situated in an area to which the U. P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 applied, on which stamp duty as payable under the Stamp Act only has been paid and the increased duty under Section 67-H of the Town Improvement Act has not been paid? On 7-4-...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kwality Restaurant
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC486(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. These are three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax challenging the legality of the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) that ice-cream is milk product.2. Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act exempts milk amongst other things from payment of tax. It also empowers the State Government to exempt any other goods by notification issued from time to time. In exercise of this power the State Government issued Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956, exempting certain goods. One of the goods exempted is milk and milk products. The entry reads as under:10. Milk and milk products such as chhena, dahi, khoa, butter and cream but excluding (1) products sold in sealed containers; and (2) sweetmeats.3. The first question is what is meant by milk product. It has not been defined in the Act or the rules. In common parlance a thing is said to be a ...
State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Shanti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All305
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The questions referred are :-- 1. 'Whether the instruments under consideration (Annexure 1 to the reference) embodies substance of a transaction which is a gift covered by Article 33 of Schedule I-B of the Act or is only a Release covered by Article 55 of Schedule I-B of the Act? 2. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and the distinct interests of each and every executant demarcated with clear precision in the body of the instrument does the instrument under consideration, relate to such several distinct matters as are, under the said section, chargeable with the aggregate amount of duties with which separate instruments, each comprising or relating to one of such matters, would be chargeable under the said Act? 2. One Shrimati Thagia widow of Malangilal was the owner of a house, having received the same from her father through a registered will dated 5-9-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »