Allahabad Court January 1980 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.
Daya Shankar Vs. Smt. Bachi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1982All376
M.N. Shukla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the houses in suit andentitled to recover rent of house No. 1 from defendants Nos. 9 and 10 and for possession over house No. 3.2. The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff's uncle Mahadeo was the exclusive owner of the aforesaid houses, Smt. Bachohi, defendant No. 1 was his widow, Dullar, defendant No. 2 was his daughter, defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were the sons of his another daughter, defendants Nos. 7 to 10 were the sons of Mahadeo's yet another daughter Sudama and defendants Nos. 11 and 12 were the tenants of house No. 1. Since Mahadeo had no son, he used to treat the plaintiff as his son since his childhood and had great affection for him. The plaintiff also used to serve Mahadeo and look after him. In Nov., 1964, he fell 111. Hence, the plaintiff with the consent of defendant No. 1 got him admitted in the Railway hospital on 9-11-1964. ...
Nanhoo Mal Jyoty Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: [1980]122ITR202(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the assessee had not filed a return of income in compliance with the notice under Section 139(2) as also a declaration in Form No. 12 as required in Section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it could have been allowed the benefit of continuance of registration ?'2. From the question itself it is apparent that the assessee did not file a declaration in Form No. 12 nor did he file a return of income. The proviso to Section 184(7) requires a declaration in writing in the prescribed form that no change in the constitution of the firm or in the shares of partners has taken place, and unless this declaration is filed renewal cannot be effected. Renewal is not automatic. It has to be done after the requirements of law have been complied with ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Kohinoor India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: [1980]45STC332(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question of law was referred for the opinion of this Court under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as it stood before its amendment:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, windscreen wipers and oil gauge manufactured and sold by the assessee and utilised in diesel locomotive were spare parts of machinery liable to be taxed at the rate of 6 per cent under Notification No. ST-7098/X -- 1012-1965 dated 1st October, 1965?2. As the law has been amended, this reference is being decided as revision. The facts in brief are as follows: The assessee manufactured and sold various articles used in machinery in the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The dispute in this revision is in respect of windscreen wipers and oil gauges supplied to Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi. It was claimed by the department that they are taxable as spare parts of machinery whereas the assessee claimed its taxability as unclassified item. The windscreen wiper...
Bipat Vs. 1st Addl. Dist. Judge, Gonda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All142
ORDERK.N. Goyal, J.1. The petitioner was a tenant of an urban building consisting of a shop against whom a suit of ejectment brought by the landlord has been decreed by the Small Cause Court. The Additional District Judge also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 23-9-1978. In that revision, the learned Additional District Judge discussed only the question of validity of notice and observed that no other points had been pressed. The petitioner then filed a review petition with the allegations that he had wanted to press the other points also, but did not consider it necessary to do so merely because he was told that his revision was to be allowed on the question of validity of notice. This review petition was dismissed on 6-12-1978. The writ petition was filed against both orders, namely, the order dismissing the revision and also the order dismissing the review petition. By order dated 19-1-1979 this Court dismissed the writ petition so far as challenge to the order annex...
Shiv Balak Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All178
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents for a declaration, recovery of possession in respect of the disputed house along with site and for recovery of Rs. 120/- as damages. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 7-11-1958. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed which was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 8th October, 1960. Against the said judgment the present appeal has been filed in this court.2. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised only one contention before me that the suit is barred by limitation. In support of his submission he has relied upon Articles 139, 142 and 144 of the old Limitation Act of 1908 as the suit had been filed on 7th August, 1950.3. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are as follows: Amba Prasad Gupta, respondent No. 8 (who is now dead and his heirs have been brought on record) was permitted to prosecute the suit as sole plaintiff under Order 22,...
Mst. Nadri Begum Vs. Mst. Nasrat Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All210
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for possession based on title in respect of the portion of a house in Mohalla Dariyabad, Allahabad. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired title to the house by purchase at a court sale in the year 1945. The number of the house when the suit was filed was alleged to be 694, Dariyabad, Allahabad. The portion of the house in suit was described as the western portion comprising of two dalans, two small kotharies and a small courtyard. It was the plaintiff's case that the defendants were in occupation of the portion in suit (house) as licensees on condition that they will make the necessary periodical repairs of the house and vacate the same when demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff revoked the defendant's licence by a registered notice dated 22nd May, 1962 and demanded possession.2. The defence was denial of the plaintiff's title to the house No. 694, Dariyabad, Allahabad and an assertion of their own title to the house. ...
Sahu Govind Prasad Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)258; [1983]139ITR825(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. For the year 1965-66, the petitioner filed return under the W.T. Act, 1957. By an assessment order dated February 26, 1971, the assessee was assessed on a total wealth of Rs. 4,62,401. In the return, the petitioner had indicated in the column meant for jewellery a sum of Rs. 1,21,835. Since the Supreme Court had, in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna : [1970]77ITR505(SC) , held that jewellery was liable to be excluded from assessment under the W.T. Act, the WTO allowed an exemption on the jewellery of the aforesaid amount shown as 'jewellery', under Section 5(1)(viii) of the W.T. Act.2. Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971 amended Section 5(1)(viii) by introducing the phrase 'but not including jewellery'. The amendment was made retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1963.3. Subsequently, the WTO issued a notice for rectification under Section 35 of the W.T. Act. He proposed to include Rs. 1,21,835 in the assessable wealth. The petitioner filed objections which were rejected ...
Hakam Singh and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)255; [1980]124ITR228(All); [1981]5TAXMAN96(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. There are five petitioners in this writ petition. They have been assessed to income-tax as an association of persons. They are aggrieved by the dismissal of their application under Section 273A of the I.T. Act by the CIT. The petitioners had applied for waiver or reduction of penalty. The Commissioner dismissed the application on the ground that the returns filed by the petitioners were not voluntary. 2. It appears that on 22nd November, 1973, the business premises of Messrs. Popular Transport Agency and Messrs. Gupta Service Station were searched by the I.T. department, and certain books were seized. Kartar Singh was a partner in those firms. Kartar Singh is one of the members of the petitioner-association of persons. The petitioner-association on 7thOctober, 1974, filed returns of income for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Subsequently, on 25th March, 1975, a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act was served on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›