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. Smt. Shakuntala Banerjee
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR837(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ' A ' Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of the court.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order allowing relief to the assessee under Sections 80L and 199 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. Sri Pyare Lal Banerjee, an eminent advocate of this court, had created a trust, vesting Government securities of the face value of Rs. 10,00,000 in the Imperial Bank of India, Calcutta as trustee, and directing, inter alia, that the trustee, that is the Imperial Baak of India, should pay the net income of the trust fund to the settlor during his lifetime and upon his death to Sonab Banerjee and Smt. Shakuntala Banerjee in equal shares. The reference related to the assessment year 1973-74. In pursuance of the trust deed Smt. Shakuntala Banerjee received interest from the Bank. A claim for deduction of Rs. 3,000 was...
Mohd. Umar Khan Vs. Idris Mohd. Ghani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All89
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This first appeal from order by Mohammad Umar Khan plaintiff is directed against an order dated 25-4-1974, passed by the District Judge, Rampur, directing that the plaint, filed by him, be returned for presentation before a proper court. 2. Mohammad Umar Khan filed Suit No. 46 of 1973, in the court of District Judge, Rampur, alleging that he was joint grove-holder of the groves specified in the plaint, along with Jabbar Khan, father of the defendants. Jabbar Khan got the name of the plaintiff expunged from revenue records and so arranged the matter that his name alone stood recorded therein. The plaintiff claimed that despite this he ramained in joint possession of the groves along with the defendants but for some time back Jabbar Khan started giving out that as the name of the plaintiff did not stand recorded in revenue papers, he had no right, title and interest in the groves. As the time for gathering fruits had arrived and as it was apprehended that the defendents ...
Smt. Nasra Begum Vs. Rijwan Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All118
Seth, J. 1. Plaintiff Smt. Nasra Begum has come up in appeal against the order dated 22nd Aug. 1975, passed by the Civil Judge, Bareilly, directing that the plaint filed by her be returned for presentation to proper court. 2. According to the plaintiff, she was married to defendant Rijwan Ali at Bareilly on October 20, 1963 and on that occasion the amount of dower payable to her was fixed at Rs. 50,000. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 25,000 was to be her prompt dower and the rest her deferred dower. After their marriage the plaintiff and defendant lived at Barabanki and a son was also born to them. Subsequently relations between the plaintiff and her husband got strained and the plaintiff demanded payment of her prompt dower. The defendant instead of paying the money to the plaintiff turned her out of his house. The plaintiff thereupon filed suit No. 6 of 1974 in the court of Civil Judge for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,000 as her prompt dower and also for possession of certain ornamen...
Banwari Lal Om Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC284(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act against the imposition of penalty under Section 15-A(1)(b) for furnishing inaccurate particulars in the fourth quarterly return. It is not disputed that gross turnover disclosed was correct. But from the account books it appeared that the amount of sales tax was Rs. 1,47,773.98, but the assessee deposited, along with the return, only Rs. 91,224.00. In appeal, the explanation of the assessee that no tax was realised on purchases on own account was accepted. Such purchases were to the tune of Rs. 8,35,900 and tax on it came to Rs. 41,395. Even after granting allowance for this amount, the assessee was found not to have deposited Rs. 15,154.95. For this, it was explained that they were also purchases on own account and the assessee was not liable to pay tax on it. It was stated that as the assessee was awaiting certificates from purchasers it did not deposit the tax. The appellate authority accepted t...
General Manager, North Eastern Railway Vs. Surajnath Dubey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ242All
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the General Manager, North, Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the two civil revisions filed by Surajnath Dubey challenge the orders passed by the prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the orders passed by the District Judge of Kumaun, Nainital on the two appeals filed by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and Surajnath Dubey against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.2. Since these cases raise common questions, they are being decided by a common judgment.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of the above cases in this Court are as under.4. Surajnath Dubey was posted as Chief Goods Clerk at Ramnagar Railway Station in the N.E. Railway, at the time when his services were terminated. He filed a suit for declaration that the termination of his services was illegal and ultra vires. The civil Court decreed the suit on 31st of May, 1969. In spite o...
Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1979
Reported in: [1983]139ITR274(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by M/s. Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is directed against an order dated November 17, 1976, passed bythe Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, refusing to entertain its application under Section 273-A of the I.T. Act, for waiving certain penalties imposed upon it on the ground that the condition precedent for exercise of the power under that section did not exist.2. The petitioner carried on business in country liquor during the previous, years relevant to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. It filed income-tax returns disclosing its income as Rs.. 28,900 and Rs. 25,620, respectively, for each of the aforementioned two years. However, it revised its return for the assessment year 1973-74 and disclosed its income for that year as Rs. 30,000. In due course, the ITO, vide order dated December 13, 1971, finalised the assessment of the petitioner at Rs. 35,000 for the year 1...
Kashmir Shawls Industries Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC190(All)
C.S.P. SINGH, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Lucknow, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether the turnover of handloom shawls and lohis sold by the assessee during the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 is exempt from sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act by virtue of entry No. 18 in list II of Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956, or is taxable under that Act2. The assessee carried on business in handloom shawls and lohis. Under entry No. 18 of Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956, issued under Section 4 of the Act, 'all kinds of cloth manufactured on handloom' was exempt from tax. The assessee claimed that shawls and lohis were handloom cloth and, as such, exempt from tax. The Judge (Revisions), following a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Firm Jaswant Rai Jai Narain v. Sales Tax Officer A.I.R. 1955 All. 585, held that handloom shawls and lohis were clothes and not cloth as appear...
Prem Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR347(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee, who is a partner in the firm, Ayodhya Prasad Gopinath, filed a return showing an income of Rs. 17,951 being share income from that firm. He showed his status as that of a HUF consisting of himself and his wife. The assessee had, before becoming a partner in the firm, separated from his father and brothers, who formed a HUF on 17th of October, 1962, and an amount of Rs. 3,216 was given to him as his share. This amount was invested by the assessee in the firm, Ayodhya Prasad Gopinath. At the time when he became a partner of this firm, he was unmarried but during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, he married and it was for this reason that he claimed that the share income received from the firm should be taxed in the hands of the HUF consisting of himself and his wife. The ITO, however, did not accept this plea and taxed him in the status of an individual as in the earlier assessment years. The decision of the ITO was reversed by th...
Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC423(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The brief facts giving rise to this revision under Section 11(1) are as under:2. The assessee carried on the business of vegetable ghee, spirit, torch, iron, gas and washing soap, etc. For the assessment year 1968-69, the order dated 27th March, 1973, was passed under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. On 28th March, 1973, notice under, Section 21 was issued and assessment order was passed on 28th March, 1974. Against this order the assessee filed an appeal, which was allowed on 13th September, 1974, and the case was remanded to the assessing authority with direction that the assessment order shall be passed only if the assessment order in original proceedings, that is proceeding under Section 9(3), which also, it appears, had been remanded and was pending before the assessing authority, had been passed. Against this order the assessee filed revision and a prayer was made for annulment of proceedings on a number of. grounds. The Additional judge (Revisions) obs...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Spinning and Manufacturing Mills C ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR361(All); [1980]3TAXMAN153(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' A ', has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court. By the assesses :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,016 estimated to be the expenditure incurred by the company on the entertainment of customers and clients at its various offices was in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2) of the, Act ' By the Commissioner :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Abohar Ginning Unit had not beenformed by the reconstruction of an already existing business but was entitled to exemption under Section 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the one-half of the profits of the previous years should be added to the capital computation for purposes of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »