Allahabad Court February 1982 Judgments
Kailash Kumar Dixit (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD956(All.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee arise out of the separate orders, both dated 25-6-1981 of the AAC, Special Range, Kanpur.2. The assessee-HUF, by means of an application dated 31-3-1978, required the ITO to recognise the partial partition of the HUF which was said to have been effected on 30-6-1976 (i.e., first day of the previous year under consideration) between its members with reference to an amount of Rs. 2,01,000 out of the fixed deposits of the HUF amounting to Rs. 2,61,000 in the Allahabad Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur.Out of the total value of the 7 fixed deposit receipts amounting to Rs. 2,01,000, the value of one of the fixed deposits to the extent of Rs. 21,000 was set apart to provide for the marriage and other expenses of the minor daughter, Km. Vinita Dixit. The rest of the deposit amounting to Rs. 1,80.000 were divided equally between the karta, his wife and his minor son. The HUF consisted of Shri Kailash Kumar Dixit, the karta, his wife, Smt. Asha Dixjt, his mi...
Tag this Judgment!Lekh Raj Vs. 4th Additional District Judge, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All265
N.D. Ojha, J.1. Respondents 2 to 5 are the landlords of house No. 1 Manam, Mohalla Lalkurti, Meerut cantonment which was occupied by the petitioner as tenant. An application was made by respondents 2 to 5 against the petitioner for release of the aforesaid house in their favour under Section 21 (1) (a) Of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act XIII of 1972) on the ground that they needed it for their own use. The application was contested by the petitioner and was dismissed by the prescribed Authority. Aggrieved by that order Respondents 2 to 5 preferred an appeal before the District Judge which Was allowed in part by the IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut, and a portion of the house aforesaid was released in favour of Respondents 2 to 5. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.2. When the writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ishaaq Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC239(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. In this revision application under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the dealer, the controversy is about the question whether the sale of timber, said to have been imported by the dealer and then sold, was liable to tax in his hands. The case of the dealer is that he had not imported any timber during the year and all the timber sold by him had been purchased by him within the State.2. The dispute relates to the year 1973-74. The dealer had not accepted liability for payment of any tax on sale of timber as he had imported none. The assessing authority, after rejecting this stand of the dealer, estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 61,000. In appeal, the taxable turnover was reduced to Rs. 25,000 by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, which was affirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly.3. It is not in dispute that during the relevant year sale of timber was taxable in the hands of the importer, and no tax was chargeable on timber purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All317
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J. 1. In an ex parte decree obtained by opposite party No. 5 against opposite party No. 4 the property in dispute was sold. It was purchased by decree holder himself. Subsequently an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made which admittedly after remand etc. was allowed and ultimately the decree was set aside and the suit in which an ex parte decree was passed has also been dismissed. While the suit was pending the property was attached before judgment and opposite party No. 4 during attachment sold the land in dispute in favour of petitioners. The dispute before consolidation authorities was between petitioners and opposite party No. 5 who are decree holder auction purchasers. All the three consolidation authorities accepted the claim of the decree holder auction purchaser obviously because the ex parte decree was standing in his favour. In view of subsequent event that is setting aside of ex parte decree and dismissal of suit filed by opposite party...
Tag this Judgment!Jaggoo Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All241
ORDERA. Banerji, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner Jaggoo Singh against an order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 29th Sept., 1980 in an appeal against the order of the prescribed authority, Sikandrabad declaring an area 47-1-10 as surplus. The order of the prescribed authority is dated 28th Nov. 1974. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 6-10-1975. A writ petition (Writ Petition No. 835 of 1976) was filed in this Courtby the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 13th Apr., 1978 and the order of the appellate authority was quashed. The appellate authority was directed to determine the ceiling area afresh. When matter went back before the appellate authority, 2nd Addl. District Judge, he allowed the appeal in part and declared 28-13-5 in terms of irrigated land as surplus. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.2. The State o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra Vs. Beena Saxena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1426
ORDERP.N. Bakshi, J.1. Smt, Beena Saxena is the daughter of Sri Brij Nandan Lal Advocate. Sri Ramesh Chandra is a resident of Meerut On 12th Feb., 1977 they were married in Fatehgarh. Soon thereafter their relations were strained. Smt. Beena Saxena filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, which was not contested by Sri Ramesh Chandra. It was allowed on 3rd April, 1978. Thereafter on 12th Apr., 1979 she moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. It was mentioned therein, inter alia, that Smt. Saxena was unable to maintain herself. The opposite party was a wealthy person, but she confined her claim to Rs. 500/- per month. This application was contested by Sri Ramesh Chandra. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. It appears that on 18th Nov., 1980 Smt. Beena Saxena entered into a remarriage. An objection was taken before the Magistrate that in view of the aforesaid remarriage, Smt. Beena Saxena was not entitled to get any mainte...
Tag this Judgment!i.E.L. Employees Union Vs. Indian Explosives Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ100All
ORDERV.K. Mehrotra, J.1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are by workmen of M/s. Indian Explosives Limited, Kanpur and M/s. Camphor and Allied Products Ltd., Bareilly which are companies registered under the Companies Act. The primary relief sought by the petitioners is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable direction commanding the respondent companies to grant to its workers what has been described as compensatory off as before and not to deprive them of it in view of the amendment made inRule 86 of the U.P. Factories Rules 1950. The State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the Chief Inspector of Factories (Inspector of Factories, in charge Bareilly Region in writ petition No. 3988 of 1976) have also been impleacted as respondents and it has been prayed that the latter be restrained from giving approval to the respondent companies for the mode in which they were implementing the aforesaid amended rule.First, the facts:2. The G...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Stores Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC244(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question involved is as to whether woollen pullovers and cardigans are covered by the entry 'hosiery'' or they are 'woollen goods'. The assessment year involved is 1972-73. The petitioner, M/s. Laxmi Stores, carried on business in purchase and sale of woollen cardigans, pullovers, topas and mufflers, etc. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee's account books were accepted and the net turnover as declared was accepted. But, in respect of sales of woollen pullovers and cardigans the assessing authority applied a rate of 6 per cent treating them to be 'woollen goods' under entry 106 of Notification No. ST-II-332/X-1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971, whereas the claim of the assessee was that woollen cardigans and pullovers were covered by entry 1 'hosiery of all kinds other than that made of pure cotton' under Notification ' No. ST-II-334/X-1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971, liable to be taxed at t...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Tyres Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC238(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The applicant, in these two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, is a dealer who is aggrieved by the levy of tax upon him, during the years 1973-74 and 1974-75, on sale of tyres of motor vehicles, etc., on the assumption that he had sold them after purchasing them from outside the State of U. P.2. In respect of both the years, the books of account of the dealer were rejected. The case of the dealer was that he was making sale of tyres, which was a controlled commodity, after purchasing them within the State of U. P. His case also was that he did not import any tyres nor did he sell them after such import.3. The turnover of sale of tyres and tubes of motor-cycles, motor scooters, etc., was, under notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 3-A of the Act, liable to tax only in the hands of the manufacturer or importer. There is no dispute about this fact nor is there any dispute about the fact that the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Baj Rangi Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All335
ORDERK.P. Singh, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner Baj Rangi had claimed cotenancy right with his alleged brother Ram Narain on the allegations that both were sons of Daulat in the pedigree given in the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The consolidationauthorities have negatived the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to establish that he was the legitimate son of Daulat. Aggrieved by the judgments of the consolidation authorities the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has challenged the judgments of the consolidation authorities.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that it has been established beyond shadow of doubt that the petitioner was born during the valid wedlock between his mother and Daulat, hence it was conclusively proved that the petitioner was son of Daulat. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provision...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »