Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All47
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed against a judgment of the First Additional District Judge, Varanasi, dated 1st Mar., 1973, declaring the claimants Second Set, i.e. 2 to 5, namely Ram Palat Singh, Ram Murti Singh, Ram Dhani Singh, and Gulab Singh, to be entitled to receive the amount of compensation awarded, Rs. 784.68 paise in question.2. The facts, briefly stated, are these. Certain land of Khata No. 9 was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, for Moghlabir Tubewell Channel in village Attarsuiya. Pargana Qasba Raja, Tehsil and district Varanasi. The compensation awarded was prepared in the name of Baul Singh son of Nandan Singh, on the basis of Khasras and Khataunis. Subsequently, Rampalat Singh and others, who were claimant Second Set, appeared and made an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer that they had purchased the acquired land in question, and, as such, were entitled to receive the compensation. Baul Singh was the claimant First S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(All)173; [1981]127ITR660(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, M/s. U. P. Hotel & Restaurants Ltd., Varanasi, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has, for the assessment year 1972-73, the previous year for which ended on 30th September, 1971, stated the case and referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the new wing added in the hotel ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an appeal is maintainable against an order directing the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Act '2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the first question are that the assessee is a limited company which derives income from a five star hotel known as Hotel Clarks Shiraj at Agra. The assessee commenced the aforesaid hotel business at Agra some time after the year 1961. During the years 1969 and 1970 it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All120
ORDERK.M. Dayal, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the defendant in a suit for partition. The defendant, after filing his written statement, it appears, delayed the suit from time to time by seeking adjournments or amendments in the pleadings or otherwise. On three days the adjournment or amendment was allowed on payment of costs. On 10th January 1974 Rs. 10/- were awarded as costs. On 25th May 1977 again Rs. 10/- were awarded as costs and on 21-7-1977 Rs. 20/-was awarded as costs. These costs were awarded by orders without specifying any period under which they were to be paid as is clear from paragraph 4 of the writ petition. On 2nd June 1979 an application was made by the plaintiff-respondent for striking off the defence of the petitioner under Section 35-B of the C. P. C. as he had failed to pay the cost.2. The trial court rejected the application by order dated 2-1-1979 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). A revision was filed by the respondent and the VI Addl. District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All1
S.D. Agarwal, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff appellant under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil P. C. Mukat Lal and Ram Chander respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed two suits Nos. 60 of 1968 and 140 of 1968 in the court of the second Munsif, Bulandshahr for recovery of an amount against Baboo Ram, respondent. After filing the suit the said respondents Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application for attachment before judgment of the property of Baboo Ram. The court directed attachment before judgment of the properties including plot No. 555 area 3 bighas 10 biswas and 13 biswansis. Suit No. 148 (140) of 1968 was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was filed against the said judgment. In appeal the parties compromised and a compromise decree wag passed. The attachment before judgment took place on 12th March, 1968. On 1st July, 1968 Baboo Ram executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants. Suit No. 148 (140) of 1969 was dismissed by the trial cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1982]49STC130(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. On 12th October, 1979, the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Agra, checked truck No. DHG 3023 belonging to M/s. Punjab Montgomery Transport Company, Agra, by unloading the same at its godown. He found that along with other articles there were 80 bags of zinc oxide in the said truck. Each bag of zinc oxide weighed 25 kg. On inquiries being made, Sri Avtar Singh, owner and driver of the truck, produced only one goods receipt No. 44260 dated 10th October, 1979, for 40 bags of zinc oxide wherein the name of the consignor was shown as Surendra Chemicals and that of the consignee as Arya Chemicals (the petitioner). The receipt indicated that 40 bags of zinc oxide had been despatched by Surendra Chemicals from Delhi to M/s. Arya Chemicals of Ferozabad. The truck driver was unable to produce any document in respect of the remaining 40 bags of zinc oxide. The Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, accordingly felt that 40 bags of zinc oxide which had been brought along with the remaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(All)78
1. JUDGMENT : M. P. Mehrotra, J. - This is an application u/s 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 which has been moved by the CIT, Agra. 2. The facts, in brief, are these. The opposite party M/s. Glorious Shoe Factory, Shoe Market, Agra, (herein-after described as the assessee) is a partnership carrying on business in the purchase and sale of shoes mostly on commission basis. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the ITO found an account in the name and style of O.H.C.C. Account. It showed a credit balance of Rs. 35,540. The said amount represented the collection made by the assessee from its customers on account of Purchase Tax. This amount was added by the ITO to the assessees income for the detailed reasons given by him in the assessment order for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The ITO relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sinclaire Murray & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta (1974) 97 ITR 615 (SC). The ITO further observed that if the assessee pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)20CTR(All)147; [1982]134ITR364(All); [1981]6TAXMAN159(All)
Mehrotra, J.1. The following income-tax and wealth-tax references shall stand disposed of by this judgment:1. I.T.R. No. 35 of 1976 in relation to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. 2. I.T.R. No. 3 of 1977 in relation to the assessment year 1972-73. 3. I.T.R. No. 49 of 1978 in relation to the assessment year 1965-66. 4. I.T.R. No. 331 of 1978 in relation to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. 2. In all the aforesaid income-tax references the common question of law, which has been referred to this court for opinion, is as follows:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the income from the three properties in question that they were purchased by the assessee benami was justified in law ?'5. W.T.R. No. 593 of 1977 in relation to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 & 1968-69.3. The question of law, which has been referred to us for our opinion in this reference, is as follows :'Whether,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All50
Murlidhar, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for (i) possession after cancellation of the gift-deed, dated 21-3-68 executed by Munshi Lal in favour of Chhuttan Lal appellant and (ii) declaration that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 are the owners of the property entitled to realise the rent of the same. The short hut rather neat point arising in the appeal is whether the plaintiffs' suit can succeed on the ground that the appellant Chhuttan Lal did not prove the gift-deed in accordance with Section 68, Evidence Act by examining an attesting witness.2. The suit was filed on 17-4-68 during the lifetime of Munshi Lal who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 by daughter's children of Munshi Lal claiming to be his legal heirs. The prayer at that stage was for a declaration that the gift-deed in question (described as gift-deed executed (Iqrari) by Munshi Lal in favour of Chhuttan Lal) was not binding on the heirs. They alleged that Munshi Lal was a 95 years old an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1981]48STC59(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. By this revision the Commissioner of Sales Tax has challenged the correctness of the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, that fish meal is fertiliser other than chemical fertiliser and therefore exempt from payment of sales tax under Notification No. 3470/X dated 16th July, 1956.2. It was found by the assessing authority that the assessee had sold fish meal to the Poultry Development Officer, Delhi. From this he inferred that fish meal was poultry feed. Before this in appeal the case had been remanded to the assessing authority to find out whether fish meal was fertiliser or poultry feed. The assessing authority did not make any effort and based its decision on the sale to the Poultry Development Officer. This was not accepted by the appellate authority because fish meal sold by the assessee was purchased from the companies which manufactured fertiliser and their turnover had been held to be exempt. The revising authority upheld the finding becau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1982]50STC56(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. In these petitions directed against levy of interest under the Sales Tax Act, the primary controversy centres round the interpretation of the expression 'tax admittedly payable under the Act' in Sub-section (1) of Section 8 introduced since 1975. Imposition of interest in fiscal statutes, in recent years is a normal feature to compensate the revenue for its loss due to delayed payments on one pretext or the other. In the Sales Tax Act it was introduced for the first time in 1964 when Sub-section (1-A) was added to Section 8 providing for payment of interest if tax assessed, reassessed or enhanced remained unpaid for six months from the date of service of notice of demand. While considering this provision the Honourable Supreme Court in Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U. P. 1973 UPTC 690 (SC) observed :The above provision was apparently added with a view to tighten up the machinery for collection of sales tax and as a deterrent measure so that the dealers may not ...
Tag this Judgment!