Allahabad Court December 1981 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.
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Suraj Kumar Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All116
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The facts, in brief, are these.The State of U. P. is the petitioner in this case. Respondent No. 1 Sri Suraj Kumar was issued the draft statement under Section 8 and objections were filed by, him. They were decided by the Competent Authority by his order dated 21-9-77, a true copy whereof is annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter an application dated 20-11-78 was moved seeking a fresh decision from the Competent Authority. A true copy of the said application dated 20-11-78 is annexure 2 to the petition, Thereafter the Competent Authority reopened the case and by his order dated 23-2-79 held that the said respondent No. 1 Sri Suraj Kumar had 328,62 sq. meters of surplus vacant land. A true copy of the order of the said authority dated 23-2-79 is annexure 3 to the petition, Respondent No, 1 thereafter filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the appellate autho...
Suraj Bhan and ors. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982All276
ORDERS.D. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts, in detail, which have given rise to the present petition, are as under. 2. The route in question is, Haldwani-Bazpur-Rampur via Kala Dongisuar. This route is an inter regional route and the major portion of it lies within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Nainital. The other portion of route lies within the juris-diction of the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly. 3. An agreement wag entered into between the two transport authorities and was agreed that four stage carriages under an equal number of regular permits should operate on the route. The Regional Transport Authority, Nainital, under whose jurisdiction the major portion of the route lay, invited applications for the grant of these four permanent stage carriage permits. In pursuance of the said invitation, 138 persons, including the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and respondents NOS. 2 aad 3, made applications. All these...
Rattan Lal Ved Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR135(All); [1982]11TAXMAN123(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ' E ', New Delhi, has referred the following question for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the true interpretation of Section 3(1)(c) read with Section 3(4) (of the I.T. Act, 1961), the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made on the basis of the previous year from 24th October, 1965, to 31st March, 1967, for the assessment year 1967-68 was not illegal '2. The first assessment of the assessee was made in the assessment year 1965-66 and the previous year adopted in that assessment year was from 15th November, 1963, to 31st December, 1964. The previous year adopted by the assessee for the assessment year 1966-67 is not apparent from the record of the case. It appears from the order passed by the ITO that before the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act were taken for the assessment year 1967-68, with which we are concerned in the present refere...
Gupta Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(All)270; [1982]135ITR504(All); [1982]10TAXMAN199(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), It relates to the assessment year 1965-66, the previous year ended on March 31, 1964. The assessee, M/s. Gupta Traders Kanpur, a partnership firm, had filed its return of income on September 27, 1965. The assessee-firm was constituted of two partners. Deo Prakash Gupta with a 10 annas share and his son, Sheo Autar Gupta, with 6 annas share. In his order made under Section 185(1)(b) of the Act on March 16, 1970, the ITO found that the assessee-firm had not carried on any business in the status of the firm and the business actually belonged to Deo Prakash Gupta, As such the proceedings in the case of the firm were filed (sic). The income shown in the return filed by the firm was to be considered in the case of Deo Prakash Gupta in his individual capacity. Deo Prakash Gupta in his individual return, had disclosed an income of Rs. 20,100. However, the assessment was framed i...
The State Vs. Chhinga and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ885
P.N. Goel, J.1. The memo of appeal along with application Under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. and another application Under Section 5, Limitation Act was filed before the Registrar on 3-4-1981 at his residence. The order of acquittal was passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mathu-ra in S. T. 105 of 1980 on 3-12-1980. Application for copy of the order/judgment was moved on 12-12-1980, Notice of the preparation of the copy was given on 7-141981. Copy was actually taken on 14-1-1981, The office rightly reported that the memo of appeal and application Under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. were filed beyond time by 4 days.2. Notice of the application Under Section 5 62'the Limitation Act was issued to the respondents opposite parties. One Alis Das, a pairokar of the respondents filed counter-affidavit. Sri Keshav Sahay Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondents: Chhinga, respondent No. 1 filed another counter-affidavit. He was represented by Sri Tejpal, Advocate.3. The learned State counsel ...
Naresh Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR556(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner has by his petition challenged the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 273A by which he waived the demand for interest for the assessment year 1974-75 up to an extent of fifty per cent. but refused relief for the entire amount. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Commissioner has not recorded any reasons for refusing relief to the petitioner for the total amount of interest. It was urged that proceedings under Section 273A are quasi-judicial in nature, and reasons have not been recorded for passing the final order. The contention of the petitioner is justified, in view of the decision of this court in the case of Paras Bhan Sadh v. CIT : [1978]114ITR834(All) . Following that decision, we allow the petition and quash the order of the Commissioner in so far as it relates to interest. The Commissioner should now decide the claim for waiver of interest made by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. Parties to bear their o...
J.K. Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(All)328; [1983]140ITR734(All); [1983]12TAXMAN76(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, has referred the following four questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant-company was a company in which the public were not substantially interested for the purpose of section 23A of the Indian Income-taxAct, 1922 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant-company could not be allowed to re-agitate the question that it was not a public company in view of the admission by the applicant-company in other proceedings as the applicant-company was fully aware of its implications ? 3. Whether the sum of Rs. 19,43,322 was not available to the assessee-company for the purpose of distribution under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was liable to distribute 100% of the distributable profits or only ...
Ajanta Paper Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT201(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of printing of tissue paper on one side with colour. It appears that the petitioner used to file a classification list of the excisable goods made by it under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The petitioner has filed the classification lists for the years 1976 and 1979 as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. At Item 3 dyed tissue paper was shown to be nil. Similar is the position in 1979. The petitioner has averred that the same situation prevailed in the intervening and other years. On the 8th of August, 1980, the petitioner received a notice purporting to be under Rule 10(a) of the Rules. The notice directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be required to pay excise duty on coloured tissue paper for the period from August, 1976 to June, 1980. The petitioner in response to the notice, sent a detailed reply on the 16th August, 1980. It transpires that a lette...
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC282(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J1. These three applications in revision are by the same dealerand are against the orders passed by the erstwhile revising authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (prior to the constitution of the Sales Tax Tribunal) refusing to stay proceedings before the assessing authority in pursuance of orders of remand made by the appellate authority. Since the revisions raise the same question, they were heard and are being decided together.2. The orders assessing the applicant to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1972-73 and under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were passed by the assessing authority. They were assailed in appeals by the dealer. The appellate authority, while accepting the submission made on behalf of the dealer substantially, remanded the cases for reassessment proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer assailed these orders of remand by filing revisions under Section 10 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevan...
Lala Ram Vs. Nathi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1268
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. It would appear that the Magistrate passed a preliminary order in this case on receiving police report dated 21-2-1978. This preliminary order was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is an apprehension of breach of peace. Written statement was invited. The entire proceedings continued and were even concluded and the Magistrate has then observed that there is no apprehension of breach of peace, nor there existed any such apprehension on 27-2-1978 or within the period of two months prior to it, hence the application Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is rejected.2. The applicant went in revision and that order was upheld by the Court of revision also.3. The order is assailed on the ground that the circumstances did not change after the preliminary order was passed and the preliminary order establishes that there did exist an apprehension of breach of peace to the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate. When such order was passed, the Magi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »