Allahabad Court September 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. Satya NaraIn Suresh Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(All)74; [1979]120ITR840(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' C ', has referred the following four questions for opinion of this court :' J. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in entertaining the appeal against an order of refusal to the registration of the firm on the basis of an order made in the assessment order itself though no separate order as such was made separately ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to take cognizance of the declaration for renewal of registration filed in Form No. 12 along with the return on March 27, 1973, a date falling after the completion of the assessment order (March 16, 1973) but prior to the service of the notice of demand on March 30, 1973, after considering the question on condonation of the delay in regard to the same ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct i...
Hisaria Plastic Products, Kanpur Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All185
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J. 1. These are two connected revisions arising out of common order. The only question that arises for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the case dismissal of the assessee's appeal as barred by time was in accordance with law. It has been found that the assessment order was served on 7th August 1969, and the appeals were filed on 23rd September. The limitation for filing appeal being 30 days it was barred by time by 16 days. The assessee filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with medical certificate from a doctor. According to medical certificate the assessee was suffering from low blood pressure and the assessee was not in a position to move from 4-9-69 to 22-9-69. The certificate of the doctor was not disbelieved by appellate and Revising Authority. But it was held by the Additional Judge Revision that there was nothing to prove that the assessee was disabled to attend to his duties. In his opinion the assessee was suffering ...
Banarsi Lal Tulsiyan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR310(All); [1980]3TAXMAN335(All)
R. R. Rastogi, J.1. The family of the assessee, Banarsi Lal Tulsiyan, consisted of Banarsi Lal Tulsiyan, his son, Vishwanath Tulsiyan, and the latter's wife, Smt. Yamuna Devi. This family was carrying on cloth business in the name and style of Arjun Das Banarsi Lal. A partial partition took place in the family on October 25, 1955, and the capital invested in the aforesaid business amounting to Rs. 22/124 odd was divided between the father and the son, the assessee receiving Rs. 11,062 out of the same as his share. After the partition, the family business was converted into a partnership business, the partners being the father and the son. That firm continued up to October 15, 1964, when the assessee became partner in two firms, M/s. Arjun Das Banarsi Lal and M/s. Banarsi Das Niranjan Lal. At that time his capital in the erstwhile firm, M/s. Arjun Das Banarsi Lal, had increased to Rs. 80,309. On October 15, 1964, the assessee debited his individual account by Rs. 50,000 in the books of ...
Harnam Singh Vs. Bhikimbar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All50
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff who succeeded in the trial court but the decision was reversed by the lower appellate court. In brief the facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are as under:The house of the plaintiff is situated in the south-west of a Rasta at the corner and opposite to it there is a small piece of land which is in dispute, is shown by letters As. Be, Sa, Da in the plaint map. To the further north of the said land was a house of the defendants which was lying in a dilapidated condition and thereafter was the house of one Bam Chandra. The dispute related to the open piece of land which both the parties claimed as appurtenant to their houses.2. Nobody had appeared on behalf of the respondents in this case.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgment of the courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the decision of the lower appellate court o...
Pratap NaraIn Agarwal Vs. Ram NaraIn Agarwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All42
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal was initially heard by a Division Bench consisting of Hon. H. N. Seth and Hon. V. K. Mehrotra, JJ. Being of the view that the controversy relating to maintainability of the appeal was of importance, which needed an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench, the following questions were referred for opinion:--1. Whether notwithstanding the provisions of Section 97 (3) of the Amending Act 1976 and amendment of Section 2(2) of the Civil P. C. by Section 3 of that Act, right of a party to file an appeal against an order determining the question falling under Section 47 of the Eivil P. C. remains unaffected because of the provisions contained in Section 97 (2) (a) of the Amending Act ?2. If answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, does Section 97 (2) of the Amending Act preserve the right of appeal against orders passed under Section 47 of the Code only in respect of appeals pending on the date on which the Amending Act came into force or does it permi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hind Motor Cycle Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1979
Reported in: [1982]134ITR348(All); [1980]3TAXMAN152(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view that the liability to pay the sum of Rs. 14,250 under the court decree dated December 18, 1969, fell upon the the assessee as a trading liability and was, therefore, allowable as a deduction?' 2. Although the Commissioner has asked for a reference of four questions, the Tribunal has referred only the question indicated above. But, in the statement of the case drawn up in para. 8, it has been stated that the question referred also embraces within it the question of allowance of litigation expenses, amounting to Rs. 2,217, which was the subject-matter of question No. 2 of the reference application filed by the Commissioner. Before we state the facts relevant for deciding the referred question, it is necessary to consider as to whether the question as refer...
Deep Chand JaIn Vs. Kasoombiri Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All117
ORDERB.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure filed by Deep Chand Jain (plaintiff in original Suit No. 324 of 1974) against the order passed by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 18th May, 1977, dismissing the appeal against the order of the V Additional Munsif, Muzaffarnagar directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. 2. The plaintiff Sri Deep Chand Jain filed a suit on 1st June, 1974 against Kasoombiri Lal in the court of Munsif Muzaffarnagar praying for two reliefs. The first relief was for ejectment from the house in question and for recoveryof rent and damages. The other relief was for possession over a vacant piece of land lying in front of the house and damages for use and occupation in respect thereof. A preliminary issue was raised before the learned Munsif in regard to the maintainability of the suit in respect of both the reliefs. It was the case of the defendant-opposite party that the suit was bad f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(All)81; [1980]121ITR747(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following four questions for the opinion of this court:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of the liability of Rs. 34,131 incurred by the assessee for the payment of damages under Section 14(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,33,662, received by the assessee from the Textile Commissioner was liable to be assessed as assessee's income ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty of Rs. 7,667 levied on the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that appeal against the levy of interest und...
Roop NaraIn and ors. Vs. Radha Mohan Katiyar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All76
ORDERS.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18th Aug. 1977 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur.2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Roop Narain and Munna Lala moved an application for release of house No. 103/280, Colonelganj Kanpur. Radha Mohan Katiyar is the tenant. Santosh Kumar is the third co-owner of the said property. The application was moved by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Santosh Kumar was made a pro forma opposite party as he was the co-owner of the said property. The prescribed authority, after considering the material on record, held that the need of the landlords was genuine and as such the release application was allowed by order dated 28th May 1977, Radha Mohan Katiyar filed an appeal against the said order dated 28th May 1977. The appeal was allowed on the technical ground that the application under Section 21 of the U.P, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Le...
Har Pratap Singh and anr. Vs. Satya NaraIn Misra and anr., Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All52
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 8th Dec. 1952, for reconveyance of a house on payment of such sum as the court may determine.2. The trial court decreed the suit against the first defendant Har Pratap Singh, the first appellant in this court, directing him to execute and get registered a sale-deed of the property in suit in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 3 to 13, on payment of Rs. 1324/- by the plaintiffs to him at the time of the execution and the registration of the sale-deed, the expenses thereof being borne by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were also awarded the costs incurred by them against the first defendant who was directed to bear his own costs. The first defendant was further directed to pay the amount of court-fees payable on the plaint, for the plaintiffs had been permitted to sue in forma pauperis. No time was fixed for payment of the amount of Rs. 1324/- by the plaintiffs or for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »