Allahabad Court January 1982 Judgments
Km. Sunita Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(All)324; [1982]136ITR672(All); [1982]9TAXMAN264(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The Tribunal has submitted the statement of case and referred the following two questions of law for our opinion : '1. Whether the amendment made in Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which came into force from April 1, 1971, would extend the period of limitation in a case where the period of limitation had not expired when the amendment came into force 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty on the minor was bad in law in view of the provisions contained in Section 160(1)(ii) read with Section 160(2)?' 2. The assessee. Km. Sunita Gupta, is a minor. Her natural guardian was her father, Sri P.K. Gupta. For the assessment year 1965-66, no estimate of advance tax as required by Section 212(3) of the Act was filed. The ITO issued notice and after hearing the assessee imposed penalty in the sum of Rs. 10,000 for this default. The assessee went up in appeal but failed. She then went up in further appeal to the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Victor Cables Corporation Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC44(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. On 27th of March, 1976, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 22nd of March, 1976, purporting to be under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The same day another notice of 27th of March, 1976, but under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was served on the petitioner. The petitioner, on the same day, namely, 27th of March, 1976, filed an objection before the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) enquiring as to which year the notice related and also stating that the assessment for the year 1971-72 had already been completed. No reply to this objection was given or served on the assessee-applicant till 31st of March, 1976. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a detailed objection. They were rejected by an order dated 28th of September, 1976. Thereupon, the petitioner came to this Court.2. The learned counsel submits that the notice was without jurisdiction for two reasons: In the first place, the notice did not mention the assessment year for which it...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Vishal Tandon Vs. Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(All)316; [1982]136ITR427(All)
SATISH CHANDRA C.J. - The Appellate Tribunal had submitted this statement of the case and has referred five questions of law for the opinion of this court. The reference is under the E.D. Act. It relates to the estate of late Sri Ram Mohan Das Tandon, who died on June 27, 1967. His son, Badri Vishal Tandon, filed a return under the E.D. Act. The Asst. controller, in due course, passed an assessment order after making various adjustments. The accountable person went up in appeal and then in further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Now, three matters are in dispute on which the Tribunal had referred to us five questions of law.The first matter relates to the inclusions of the deceaseds shares amounting to Rs. 1,27,098 in Lala Man Mohan Das Trust. The facts ar :Lala Man Mohan Das Tandon died somewhere prior to 1953 leaving behind his widow and five sons, the youngest of whom was Ram Mohan Das Tandon, the deceased. Lala Man Mohan Das was the treasures of the Allahabad Bank. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Niwas Agrawal and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ21
K.S. Varma, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution it has been prayed that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued directing release of petitioner, Number 1, Sri Niwas Agarwal. The order under challenge is Annexure 1 and has been issued under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. 1980. A perusal of the record indicates that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a salesman for a period of three months. It has been stated in the writ petition that his services were terminated after the expiry of three months, i. e., on 26-9-1981. This fact has been controverted in the counter-affidavit wherein it has been stated that he continued to work on the post. It is unnecessary, to go into the question as to whether the petitioner continued to be in employment as salesman on the date in question or not. A perusal of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, indicates that it ap...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1982
Reported in: [1982]135ITR365(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment year 1969-70, the Tribunal has submitted the statement of case and has referred the following question of law for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the salary paid to the karta of the Hindu undivided family was an allowable deduction ?'The assessee is an HUF consisting of Sri Gopi Nath and his two minor children. Gopi Nath and his wife entered into an agreement on 4th of July, 1966, whereunder the husband was to be paid a salary of Rs. 1,000 per month for looking after the interests of the family. At that time, the family had made investments in various partnership firms through the karta, namely, the husband. The other source of income of the HUF was from interest on loans. The HUF claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 12,000 as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was salary paid to the karta for looking after the family's business interests. The ITO disallowed the claim. He held that in substance the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Aqlima Bibi and ors. Vs. Shiv Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All158
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for demolition of certain constructions and for an injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction, on the land in suit, and for possession thereon.2. The land is situate within the municipal Hmits of the town of Maunath Bhanjam in the district of Azamgarh. The plaintiffs are the Zamindars of village Sarahu to which the land appertains and are in that sense the owners of the land. Although there was some dispute, the land in suit has been found to form part of plot No. 296, and has an area of 310 Karis. There are three sets of defendants, namely the first set comprising of defendants Nos. 1 to 4, second set comprising of defendant No. 5 and the third set of defendants Nos. 6 and 7. The portions of the land with which each of the three sets of the defendants are concerned, are different and the immediate cause of action pleaded against them is also not the same. The plea of multi-fariousness, that was r...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Paul Chandra Vs. Durga Dutt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All213
K.M. Dayal, J.1. This execution Second Appeal has been filed by the decree-holder. The decree-holder obtained a decree against Durga Datt on 30-10-1956 in Suit No. 242 of 1953. The decree was put into execution on 26-11-1957, in execution case No. 278 of 1957. Several properties were attached in execution. Objections were filed by several persons claiming shares in the properties and claiming some of the properties exclusively. Objections were partly allowed under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. on 12-5-1958 and 2-8-1958. Thereafter two suits were filed, one by the decree-holder-appellant (Suit No. 73 of 1959) under Order 21, Rule 63 C.P.C. The other suit was filed by Lalit Kishor and others under Order 21, Rule 63 C.P.C. which was numbered as Suit No. 401 of 1958. These suits were finally decided in Second Appeals Nos. 1744 and 1945 of 1961 on 22-12-1967 by this Court.2. In the meantime during pendency of Second Appeals in this court under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. the execution was consigned...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: [1982]49STC320(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. A partnership firm by the name of Radhey Shyam Lal Bahadur got itself registered under the Sales Tax Act somewhere in 1969. In due course, it won an excise shop at an auction. The firm appears to have carried on the business of selling liquor in that shop. In due course, the Sales Tax Officer commenced proceedings for the assessment year 1969-70 and ultimately passed an assessment order levying a sales tax amounting to Rs. 55,840 on the firm Radhey Shyam Lal Bahadur. The assessed amount of tax not having been paid, recovery proceedings were initiated against the parties. A notice thereof was served on the petitioner Shanker Lal. He made an application to the Sales Tax Officer that he was not connected at all with the firm Radhey Shyam Lal Bahadur. He was never a partner in that firm. His name has been wrongly introduced. The recovery proceedings should hence be dropped against him. Finding no satisfactory response, the petitioner came to this Court and filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!ivan Erasmus Vs. Mrs. Zena Erasmus
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All194
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This and the connected appeal both arise from an order dated 29th Sept., 1981 of the court of the IVth Add), District Judge, Allahabad awardingmaintenance pendente lite to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs. 600 per month under Section 36 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in a suit for divorce instituted by the appellant against the respondent. The suit was filed on 13th Dec. 1978 and the application for maintenance pendente lite was made on 14th Jan. 1979. The order under appeal declares that the respondent is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 19,800 by way of alimony pendente lite from Jan. 1978 up to Sept. 1981, on 29th day of which the order under appeal was passed. The year, 1978 specified in the order appears to be a mistake for the year 1979, for the amount of Rupees 19,800 works out to be maintenance for 33 months at the rate of Rs. 600 per month and that would cover the period Jan. 1979 to Sept. 1981 both inclusive. 2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad and ors. Vs. Mauleshwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All162
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs Second Appeal in a suit for partition and separate possession, over the plaintiffs' share in a notice with the land appurtenant thereto and for damages for cutting away the crops over the agricultural land in suit and the trees from the other land in suit. Joint possession over the agricultural land was also claimed, Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, who are also appellants Nos. t to 3, are purchasers under a sale-deed Dt. the 14th Sept., 1964 of the shares in the property in suit of Ram Sureman, Ram Ujagar and Ram Milan who are the sons of Smt. Partapa. She also joined in the sale-deed as a vendor. Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, of whom plaintiff No. 4 died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by the appellants Nos. 4 to 8 and 10 to .12, and the plaintiff No. 5 is appellant No. 9, are the purchasers under a sale deed dated the 4th Feb., 1966 of the share in the property in suit of Shesh Chandra son of Smt, Dulari. The sixth plaintiff, who is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »