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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (P.) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR598(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' B ') has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court;'1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the payments of Rs. 1,49,884 on account of guarantee commission and Rs. 1,81,104 on account of commission paid on sales of sugar passed all the tests laid down in rule 3 of the 1st Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition totalling Rs. 2,56,046representing disallowance of guarantee commission and commission paidon sale of sugar ' 2. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it appears that the figure of Rs. 1,49,884 as payment of guarantee commission has been mentioned in question No. 1 due to some clerical error. As the dispute with regard to this item was only as respects Rs. 74,942, the first question will ...
Raj NaraIn JaIn Vs. Firm Sukha Nand Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All78; MANU/UP/0163/1980
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. This petition which should normally have been decided by a learned single Judge is before us since when it came up for hearing before N. D. Ojha, J. he was of the opinion that the questions involved in the case were of considerable importance and not free from difficulty and he consequently thought it desirable that it may be decided by a Division Bench. 2. The material facts giving rise to this petition are that previously one Manohar Lal and Nirmal Kumar were the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute. At a court auction the petitioner purchased the property in question. By means of registered dend dated 20th March, 1948 the then landlords had leased out the premises to the tenants-opposite parties. One of the terms of the registered lease deed was that the tenants shall not be liable to ejectment at the instance of the landlords, except on the ground that they were in arrears of rent for a full year. Having stepped into the shoes of the landlords, the ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Guru Prasad Shyam Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC430(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, the following question of law was referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, was right in law in making reimbursement of tax to the tune of Rs. 12,613.592. The assessee made purchases of oil-seeds both from registered and unregistered dealers. Under the State Act, tax was leviable on first purchases. The assessee paid tax on purchases made from unregistered dealers, but in respect of purchases made from registered dealers, as tax was already paid, it was not required to pay any tax although it being the first purchase tax was leviable on it. It was thereafter sold and under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act a tax of Rs. 12,613.59 was imposed on the assessee on the turnover of inter-State sales amounting to Rs. 4,20,452.50, which was paid by him. An application for reimbursement under Section 29-B of the U.P. Act was made ...
P.N. Banerjee Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR658(All); [1980]3TAXMAN71(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The two assessment years involved in this reference are 1967-68 and 1970-71. The assessee's returns should have been filed on or before 30th June, 1967, and 30th June, 1970, respectively, for the two years in question. No return was, however, filed by the assessee and, accordingly, the WTO issued notice under Section 14(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). The notice under Section 14(2) for the assessment year 1967-68 was served on the assessee on 25th of December, 1967, and that for the other year on the 12th of June, 1970. The assessee, however, filed first a return for the assessment year 1967-68, on the 12th of June, 1971, and for 1970-71, on 4th June, 1971. The WTO being of the view that the assessee had failed to file the returns in time without any reasonable excuse issued notice under Section 18(1)(a). The assessee's explanation was that one K. P. Chaterji, advocate, had been looking after his affairs from the period of his...
Sheo Varan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All92
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Mines Tribunal, Agra, dated 24-11-1977, determining the terms and conditions of the lease under Section 107 (2) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. 1 of 1951), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner, Sheobaran Singh, was an intermediary and Zamindar of Villages Ghaskata and Tantpur in tehsil Kheragarh, district Agra, before the enforcement of U. P. Act I of 1951. On the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, all the estates stood transferred to and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Consequences of vesting of an estate in the State are stated in Section 6 of the Act. It provides that when the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries.--(i) in every estate in such area including land ............, and(ii) in all sub-soil in...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Uma Shanker Persad and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC295(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This was a reference under Section 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act made at the instance of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. In view of the U. P. Taxation Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1978, it shall now be treated as revision under Section 11(1) of the Act.2. The short question for consideration in this revision is as to whether bhathi (air blowing instrument) falls within the category of machinery taxable at 6 per cent under Notification . No. ST-7098/X dated 1st October, 1965, or is to be treated as an unclassified item. The assessee is a dealer in hardware, chemicals, etc., and the assessment year involved is 1968-69. In respect of sales of bhathi the assessee claimed that the same could not be treated as machinery and tax on the sales of the same was to be charged at 2 per cent and not at 6 per cent. This contention was not accepted by the departmental authorities, but was accepted by the Additional Judge, Sales Tax (Revisions), relying on the orders made by ...
Rang Bahadur Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ246
S. Malik, J.1. This is a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court while hearing Criminal Revision No. 394 of 1979 (Rang Bahadur v. State).2. The question referred has not been formulated by the learned Judge. On perusing the order of reference and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 8-12-1978 which gave rise to the revision application before this Court, we find that the question referred to us appears to be:In a case to which the provisions of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) apply, will Section 130 of the Act become inapplicable merely because the accused appeared before the Court without being summoned?The relevant facts are that Mini Bus bearing registration No. U. T. T, 7181 driven by the applicant was checked at 5.00 p.m. on 21-11-1978 and violation of several provisions of the Act were detected. The applicant appears to have appeared before the Mobile Court which was functioning in the area just after the compl...
Satya Prakash Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ78
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs, 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 3 months' R. I. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Moradabad, hence this revision,2. A sample of Besan (gram flour) was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 21st Jan. 1976 at 10.30 A. M. in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials in the possession of the Food Inspector was sent for analysis the report of the Public Analyst was as follows:Sampoorn Bhasm - 2.6%. Halke Hydrocholoric Ami me abiley bhasm - 0.2% Khesari ke liye hydrocholoric ami Parikshan - Dhanatmak. Microscopy - adhik matra men Ghana tatha thori matra men Khesari ke starch paye gaye.and am of the opinion that namune men thori matra men Khesari (Lathyrus sativus) ka Aatta mila hua hai. Khesari ka prayog Khady...
Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR269(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question for opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 19,119 00 demurrage of the warehouse in which the goods were stored during the pendency of the case were not admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in computing the business profits '2. The assessee is a registered firm with its head office at Halsi Road, Kanpur. It had a rolling mill in the name and style of M/s. Mahavir Rolling Mills. The assessee used to manufacture iron bars, out of billets and plate cuttings, etc. During the earlier year, the assessee had imported certain goods under an import licence. On the goods being inspected by the customs authorities it was found that they were different from the goods which were covered by the licence. The goods were detained, a...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Agrawal Agencies
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC455(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question of law was referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether adhesive falls under the category of chemical or is unclassified item2. As the law has been amended this reference is decided as revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The revising authority held 'adhesive' appears to have been prepared by chemicals and used for industrial purposes. It was therefore chemical. As it is locally purchased the assessee was held not liable to pay any tax on it. In Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Prayag Chemical Works [1970] 25 S.T.C 85 (F.B), a Full Bench of this Court observed:According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary 'chemical' means anything obtained or used in chemistry. The word has been judicially construed in the U.S.A. There it means a substance used for producing a chemical effect or produced by a chemical process.3. There is no finding or evidence that adhesive was obtained or used in chemistry or that it was a substance used for producing a che...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »