Allahabad Court March 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.
Girja Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All334
ORDERH.N. Seth, J. 1. By this application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendants claim that the order dated 30-11-1979, passed by the Munsif, Jaunpur refusing to declare that the suit giving rise to this revision has abated, be set aside. 2. Babu Nandan Singh filed a suit against Udit Singh, Girja Shunker Singh, Ganga Pd. Singh, Sankatha Singh and Ravindra Prasad Singh for a mandatory injunction directing them to demolish a wall marked by letters Ta-tha, and ta-ja shown in the plaint map. 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Udit Singh died in the year 1970, The heirs of the plaintiff Babu Nandan Singh, who too had died during the pendency of the suit, made an application, No. 103 Ka, in the year, 1977 stating that Udit Singh was dead and that his heirs and legal representatives were already on the record and prayed that a note be made accordingly. The defendants claim that Udit Singh had, apart from his sons who are defendants Nos. 3 to 5 ...
Smt. Madhubala Vs. Smt. Budhiya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All266
S.D. Agarwal, J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for ejectment of the respondent from the Khaprail in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 126/- and costs of the suit. The case of the appellants was that Jaedish Saran father of the plaintiff-appellantswas the owner of the property in dispute, and after his death in July, 1967, they became the owners of the said property, It was alleged that the property in dispute was let out by Jagdish Saran to Kundan and that after the death of Kundan who died in February, 1969, the defendants-respondents Smt. Budhiya and Hari Ram, the widow and son of the deceased Kundan, continued to occupy the Khaprail in suit. It was further alleged that there was default on the part of the respondents in the payment of rent and as such the suit was filed for ejectment. The suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that they did not commit ...
Smt. Radha Devi Dalmiya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)67; [1980]125ITR134(All); [1980]4TAXMAN183(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. For the assessment year 1971-72 the Appellate Tribunal held that for the purposes of Section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the annual letting value of the house be fixed at Rs. 14,000. Aggrieved by this finding, this reference has been made at the instance of the assessee. 2. It appears that the assessee constructed a house in Tilak Nagar, Kanpur. Taking into consideration the investment made by the assessee as well as the likely return, the ITO determined the annual letting value at Rs. 18,000. This finding was affirmed by the AAC. The assessee took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held :-- 'The assessee has taken an objection that annual letting value taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 18,000 was not justified and the annual letting value should be taken at Rs. 8,700, as shown, by her. Section 23(2) states how the annual value would be determined. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has taken the investment in the house and als...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Gulab Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All283
1. The plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') are Hindus and they applied to the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh, for permission to institute a suit under Section 92, C.P.C., against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'). The Advocate General by his order dated February 25, 1971, granted the permission. The Advocate General in his order observed as follows:--'This is an application for permission to file a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. It appears that a Hindu temple was constructed about a hundred years back on nazul land and, thereafter, from time to time, several members of the public have donated properties for this temple and other buildings, like Dharamshala etc. have also been constructed with such donations which are, at present, appurtenant to the temple. All these properties are being managed by the proposed defendants.'Thereafter the Advocate General referred to the presumption in regard to Hindu temples and held tha...
S.P. Srivastava Vs. Smt. Prem Lata Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All336
ORDERA. Banerji, J.1. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the husband. He had filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The suit was decreed ex parte on the 2nd June, 1973. On the 15th April, 1976 Smt. Prem Lata Srivastava, hereinafter refrred to as the wife, made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree claiming that she came to Know only on the 15th April, 1976 about the ex parte decree. She also moved an application for temporary injunction on the 15th April, 1976 restraining the husband from marrying again. This injunction order was served on the 16th April, 1976. The husband had contracted a second marriage with one Pratima Devi on the 14th April, 1976. The trial court by its order dated 22nd December, 1977 set aside the ex parte decree. The husband has come up in revision against the above order.2. In her appl...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bombay Machinery Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC291(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is the Commissioner's revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act relating to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and the question for consideration is as to whether steel tubes are liable to tax as a declared commodity under Section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, at the rate of 3 per cent or as mill stores liable to tax at 6 per cent. The only reason given by the revising authority for treating steel tubes as a declared commodity under Section 14(iv) of the Central Act was that in the revision for the immediately preceding year this commodity has been taxed at 3 per cent. This view is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained.2. Section 14 of the Central Act declares certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Clause (iv) of this section as applicable to the assessment year under consideration was as under :(iv) Iron and steel, that is to say,-(a) pig iron and iron scrap;(b) iron plates sold in the sam...
Sushil Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(All)274
1. JUDGMENT : B. N. Sapru, J. - According to the petitioner there was a HUF named as Bawan Das and Sons, in which Sri Sushil Kumar was a member. A partial partition took place and Shri Sushil Kumar was allotted his share in the ancestral assets. With the aid of the assets received on the partition, Sri Sushil Kumar, who was minor, was admitted to the benefit of a partnership in a registered partnership in a registered partnership firm known as Clarks Hotel, Varanasi. The petitioner continued to be assessed in his individual capacity. Apart from the income from the assets, Sushil Kumar started enjoying an income from salary and commission. In February, 1965 Sushil Kumar got married and according to the petitioner a separate HUF was formed of which Sri Sushil Kumar was a Karta. However, upto the year 1971 he continued to file one single income-tax return in the status of an individual showing therein all his income whether received as a Karta of the family as also the income earned in hi...
Rani Rajendra Kumari Ba Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(All)261; [1981]130ITR708(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. In this petition the validity of a notice dated 29th March, 1976, issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 1967-68 is involved. It appears that the petitioner had disclosed income from royalty and Garraiya Bazar besides the share income for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. For each one of these years, the ITO added the income of the petitioner from these two sources' in the total income of the petitioner's husband under Section 64 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner's husband went up in appeals and succeeded. The AAC held that the income from the aforesaid two sources arose to the present petitioner and could not be clubbed with the total income of the husband. The appeals were allowed. The ITO went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The findings were confirmed and the Tribunal held that the income arising to the assessee's wife from these two sources cannot be computed in the total income of the assessee under S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kailashpat Jutha Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)261; [1980]125ITR11(All); [1980]4TAXMAN95(All)
Rastogi, J.1. In compliance with the direction issued by this court in its order dated November 28, 1977, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in giving the assessee the benefit of set-off of speculation loss computed but not apportioned in the year 1964-65, against the assessee's speculation profit during the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The facts giving rise to this question briefly stated are that the assessee, an individual, enjoyed income from salary, dividend, interest, besides share income from a partnership firm, M/s. Juthalal Mahavir Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'). The firm, inter alia, carried on speculation business also and in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65, it suffered a loss in that business. In that year the assessment of the assessee was completed o...
Subhash Chandra Sarvesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR619(All); [1980]4TAXMAN106(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77, the ITO passed assessment orders on 11th October, 1976, and 25th April, 1977, respectively. The assessee had not made any claim for deductions under Section 80J and Section 80HH of the IT. Act. Naturally, the ITO did not deal with or allow the deductions under these provision?. Subsequently, the assessee became aware that he was entitled to claim deductions under the aforesaid provisions and filed revisions before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner passed a consolidated order in respect of the revisions of both the assessment years. He held that no relief was claimed under these provisions before the ITO in the assessment proceedings or in the returns of income-tax filed by the assessee. The ITO could not take up the question of these reliefs suo motu. The claim now made was a belated one and could not be entertained in a revision. Aggrieved against this revisional order, the assessee has come to this co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »