Allahabad Court June 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.
Ghurahu and ors. Vs. Sheo Ratan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All3
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Land in dispute was acquired by Hulas who admittedly was petitioner's ancestor. In consolidation proceedings it was claimed by opposite parties that Hulas's son Sughar had two sons Shivraj and Nanhkoo and petitioners were descendants of Sheorai whereas opposite parties were descendants of Nanhkoo. This was denied and Nanhkoo was said to be son of one Todi. The entire dispute therefore was whether Sughar had one or two sons. It has been found by Deputy Director that since 1308 Fasli it were the ancestor of petitioners branch who were exclusively recorded. He however endorsed finding of appellate authority, and accepted claim of opposite parties of co-tenancy because written statement filed by petitioner in suit under Section 229B filed by opposite parties, for declaration that they were co-sirdars which abated due to enforcement of consolidation the petitioners no doubt denied that opposite parties were not of their family but it was not specifically alleged that N...
Chandika Vs. Sukhnandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All312
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1.This is a defendant's second appeal against whom the lower appellate Court has passed a decree also for ejectment from the premises in suit in which the appellant was a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff claimed that the appellant was in default in the matter of payment of rent and that he failed to make the payment in spite of service of a notice of demand within the time allowed by law. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant failed to vacate the premises in spite of being called upon to do so by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The appellant, inter alia, pleaded that he was not in default and further that the composite notice of demand and one under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was invalid. Both these pleas were accepted by the trial Court which, consequently, dismissed the suit for the relief of ejectment. It, however, decreed the suit for recovery of certain amount found due from the defendant.3. ...
U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas594(All); (1980)19CTR(All)334; [1981]130ITR835(All)
Seth, J.1. The assessee in these three references is M/s. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur, a State undertaking, whose object is to develop industries in the State. With this object in view it arranges finance for various industrial projects whether owned or run by the Government, statutory body, private companies, firm or individual, etc., and also works as an underwriter. One of the conditions on which the assessee undertakes to finance the companies is that on the shares of such companies subscribed by the public it would get underwriting commission and brokerage at the rate of 2% and 1% respectively. In the various years, the assessee is shown to have received the following amounts by way of underwriting commission and brokerage :AssessmentyearsAmount Rs. 1965-661,23,8061966-672,20,059ITR No.37 of 19761967-684,26,6831969-701,77,0651970-714,26,685ITR No.31 of 19761971-721,15,000ITR No.37 of 1976.2. The assessee did not include the aforementioned amounts of ...
Ganeshi Lal and Sons and anr. Vs. Income-tax, Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR846(All); [1980]4TAXMAN440(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these three petitions, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, are that in the City of Agra, there is a firm which carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Ganeshi Lal & Sons, During the year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, the firm had ten partners who used to be, in respect of their share income from the firm, assessed to income-tax as individuals. It isclaimed that during the year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, some partners of the firm retired as a result of which the firm stood dissolved and a new firm consisting of the remaining partners came into existence and this new firm continued to carry on the business in the same name. Subsequently, there were other variations in the firm and the firm, as it stands today, is constituted of eight partners. Some of those partners are, in respect of the share income derived by them from the firm, being assessed as individuals, the remaining pa...
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(All)54; [1981]127ITR287(All); [1980]4TAXMAN490(All)
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. The petitioner, Swadeshi Polytex Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, distributing and dealing in polyester fibre, organic and inorganic heavy chemicals, etc. Itfollows the mercantile system of accounting and the financial year of the company ends on the last day of September every year. In respect of the financial year ending 30th September, 1973, relating to the assessment year 1974-75, it submitted its return on the 22nd February, 1975, showing a loss of Rs. 5,47,44,770. Subsequently, it submitted a revised return on the 31st December, 1976, showing a loss of Rs. 6,09,42,720. Another revised return was filed by the petitioner on the 26th November, 1977, showing a loss of Rs. 6,37,49,940. In regard to the aforesaid returns and revised returns pursuant to notices issued under Section 142(1...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›