Allahabad Court August 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.
Vishwa Nath Prasad Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All7
H.N. Seth, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court before whom this petition by Viswa Nath Pd. under Article 226 of the Constitution came up for hearing, felt that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Malik Nizamuddin v. Sheo Prakash (1960 All LJ 889) which according to him covered the controversy raised in this petition, requires reconsideration. He accordingly directed that the papers of this case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up before us.2. The dispute in this petition relates to plot No. 122 of Khata No. 58 of village Puraina, Tappa Shat, Pargana Bansi East which came under the consolidation operation in the year 1970.3. In the basic year, the plot in dispute was recorded as sole sirdari of petitioner, Vishwa Nath Pd. On 17-7-1970, Smt. Baboona, filed an objection under Sec. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, alleging that the plot in question was tenancy grove of Har...
Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR149(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on proper interpretation of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the interest received from the partners of the firm could not be deducted from the interest paid to the partners by the firm for the purposes of Section 40(b) for the assessment year 1971-72 ' 2. The facts necessary for answering the question are short. The assessee is a partnership firm, and carried on business of flour mill and had a tin factory at Kanpur. During the previous assessment year relevant for 1971-72, it had advanced certain sums of money to its partners and it also had taken loans from them. It had paid interest on the amount borrowed, and received interest on the amounts advanced. The assessee's contention was that the interest paid to the partners should be deducted from its total income, and in the alternative contended that only that amou...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geeta Ram Kali Ram and Suresh Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR708(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law which requires consideration by this Full Bench is whether levy of interest either under Section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for late filing of the return, or under Section 215 for not paying or short paying advance tax, or under Section 217 for not sending the estimate, is appealable under Section 246 of the Act.2. It is trite that an appeal is a creature of the statute. An assessee has a right of appeal only if there is a statutory provision for it. Chapter XX of the I.T. Act, 1961, deals with appeals and revisions. Section 246 provides:' 246. Any assessee, aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Income-tax Officer may appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against such order--... (c) an order against the assessee, where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this, Act or any order of assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or Section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or t...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sunshine Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC92(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. The respondent-assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of guilded glass beads. The assessment years involved are 1968-69 and 1969-70 and the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act:(1) Whether the guilded glass beads fall under the category of glasswares and taxable at 10 per cent under Notification No. 905 dated 31st March, 1956 ?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative then whether the additional revising authority was legally justified to hold that the dealer was liable to pay tax at 2 per cent up to 30th September, 1969, and at 3 per cent from 1st October, 1969 ?2. In view of the recent amendment made in the Act, these references will be treated as revisions under Section 11(1) of the Act.3. According to the assessee, guilded glass beads manufactured by it are not glasswares and sales of the same should not be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent under N...
Hirday NaraIn Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ240
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the P. F. A. Act and sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Hence this revision.2. According to the prosecution case, R.C. Gupta, Food Inspector found the applicant Hirday Narain selling and exposing milk for sale at about 11.35 a.m. on 25-5-1976 near Vijai Nagar Crossing, Kanpur. After disclosing his identity he purchased 660 Mls. of milk. The usual formalities were observed and the necessary documents were prepared and executed. Out of the three phials of sample of cow's milk bottled by the Food Inspector, one was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow. His report indicated that the fat contents in the sample were 4.3% and non-fatty contents were 6.7%. The sample of milk was thus adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the authority concerned, pr...
Ganga Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ235
J.P. Chaturvedi, J.1. These are two appeals against a judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Etawah, Criminal Appeal No. 2042 of 1974 is by Ganga Singh, Arjun Singh and Dangal Singh. Criminal Appeal No. 2412 of 1974 is by Soney Lai. Soney Lai was convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 301, I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The appellants Ganga Singh, Arjun Singh and Dangal Singh were convicted of an offence under Section 302 read with Sections 301 and 34, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted of an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentences of all the appellants were ordered to run con...
Bhagat Shyam and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR164(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', 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 Tribunal was correct in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in cancelling the registration granted to the assessee-firm under Section 186(1) for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 '2. The facts leading to the present reference briefly stated are, that the applicant, M/s. Bhagat Shyam and Company, was a partnership concern constituted under a partnership deed executed on March 10, 1963. Mela Ram, Bhagat Ram and Govind Ram having Rs. 0-2-0, 0-3-0 and 0-3-0 shares, respectively, were the partners of the assessee-firm and Shyam Sundar and Radhey Shyam, minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and were given Rs. 0-4-0 share each in the profits of the firm. The minors were not to share the losses which were to be borne by the three partners a...
Kunj Behari Lal Lalta Prasad Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1979
Reported in: [1983]144ITR583(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This petition is directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax dismissing revisions, which in turn were directed against the appellate orders rejecting the plea that thepetitioner-assessee was not liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(a) for delay in filing the return.2. For the assessment year 1967-68, admittedly, the return was filed four months late while for the assessment year 1968-69, it was filed 22 months late. The assessee did not appear before the ITO and so he had no occasion to know whether there was any reasonable cause for not filing the return. For the year 1968-69 the only ground taken was that the partner of the firm was unwell. The AAC repelled this ground by adding that there was no evidence showing that there was any serious illness of any of the partners. The grounds were held to be vague and inadequate. The Commissioner affirmed these findings.3. For the assessment year 1968-69, the explanation furnished for the delay...
Brij Ratan Lal Bhoop Kishore and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(All)68; [1983]139ITR906(All); [1980]4TAXMAN100(All)
Satish Chandka, C.J.1. These three writ petitions are inter-related. They have been filed by a firm, M/s. Brij Ratan Lal Bhoop Kishore, as one of its partners. The prayer is that the recovery certificate and the attachment order of the properties of the partner be quashed.2. The firm, M/s. Brij Ratan Lal Bhoop Kishore, consisted of four partners. It was treated as a registered firm for the assessment year 1964-65 and subsequent years till 1967-68. The firm was dissolved on February 1, 1968. With effect from February 2, 1968, two of the partners, namely. Brij Ratan Lal and Bhoop Kishore, started a new partnership firm.3. For the assessment year 1968-69, the firm was assessed as a registered firm on a total income of Rs. 2,86,545. An appeal and then a second appeal yielded some relief. Meanwhile the Addl. CIT issued a notice under Section 263(1) of the Act dated July 3, 1970, addressed to the firm requiring it to show cause why the order directing registration be not cancelled. After hea...
Bireshwar Mookerji and ors. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of W ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1979
Reported in: [1982]135ITR29(All)
Yasoda Nandan, J.1. The petitioners in these three connected writ petitions are assessees under the W.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')- Bireshwar Mookerji, Prag Dass Agarwal and Smt. Indra Mohini are the petitioners, respectively, in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 96 of 1975, 936 of 1975 and 483 of 1976. The three petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the basic contentions arising for consideration in all of them are the same, though the learned counsel addressed the same arguments in different forms.2. The material facts giving rise to these petitions are that all the three petitioners held nazul lands on lease and had made constructions thereon during the subsistence of the leases. It is alleged that the period of their leases had expired and their terms had not been renewed and consequently the petitioners had no right left in them, except the right to remove the malwa of the constructions existing on such properties. According to the petitioners, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »