Allahabad Court February 1982 Judgments
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Bansal Bottle Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC369(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has filed this revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act challenging the decision dated 4th June, 1981, of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, taking the view that synthetic essential oils of different varieties sold by the dealer-opposite party-during the year 1975-76 was not exigible to tax under the U.P. Act as 'scents and perfumes' at the rate of 12 per cent. The assessing authority and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, had held the turnover of that sale liable to tax at that rate.2. From the order of the Tribunal it appears that it examined itself the samples of the articles which had been sold by the dealer. On its own opinion, on the nature of the article, the Tribunal felt that it could not be treated to be covered by the entry 'scents and perfumes'. It has recorded its finding in the following terms:The appellants have produced before me the synthetic essential oils of different varieties and...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Prakash Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD283(All.)
1. These two appeals, both relating to the assessment year 1977-78, one filed by assessee against the order of the Commissioner, under Section 263, and another filed by the revenue against the order of the AAC, revolve round the same facts and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is an individual. Here it will be necessary to point out that the assessee was also the karta of his HUF which was a partner in the firms Hanuman Prasad Surya Prakash and Kanhaiya Lal Hanuman Prasad. The assessee's wife Smt. Gita Devi was also a partner in both of these firms. The assessee, in his individual capacity, was, however, a partner in Kanhaiya Lal Hanuman Prasad only. The assessment of the assessee-individual was completed by the ITO by order dated 22-12-1977 on the assessee's share from the firm Kanhaiya Lal Hanuman Prasad and the assessment was, thus, made on a total income of Rs. 37,260.Subsequently, however, the Commissioner was of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadi Ram Ganga Pd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All246
K.M. Dayal, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Mishra for the appellant and Sri Vinod Swarup for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant No. 2 (3?) booked nine wagons of wheat from Bombay through the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiff was the consignee. The goods were received in partly damaged stage. Out of nine wagons, four wagons were found to be partly damaged and there was also shortage. The suit was filed for damages. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that the goods were not in a rotten stage when delivered and several other pleas. The defendant No. 3 filed a written statement alleging that the goods when despatched by it were in perfect and sound condition and it was not liable for any loss or damages. 4. . The trial court decreed the suit holding that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were responsible for the damages due to wetting and loss in weight. 5. An appeal was filed by the Railway Administration whic...
Tag this Judgment!Ajadul Bux and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All435
S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. By means of the present petition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of plots Nos 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1318 and 1319 of village Gani Bundwara, pergana Patialla, Dist, Etah has been challenged. The notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued on 15th Dec. 1969. The case of the petitioners is that they have got their own residential building, family graveyard and mosque in plot No. 1310 and over plots Nos. 1312 and 1313 they have their own residential house and some portion of the land appurtenant thereto. It has been further alleged in the petition that the petitioners did not receive any notice Under Section 4 of the Act nor any other information was given to the petitioners. Subsequently a notification was issued on 17th Feb, 1972 Under Section 6 r. w. Section 17(1) of the Act and the possession of the land in dispute w...
Tag this Judgment!Ajaipal and anr. Vs. Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC59(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This petition seeks the quashing of the orders dated 30th November, 1974, 10th March, 1975, and 1st May, 1976, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Banda, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Jhansi, and the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Allahabad, respectively. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from realising any amount as sales tax under the impugned assessment orders from the petitioners.2. M/s. Jaipal Ajaipal, Hamirpur, carried on business in foodgrains and oilseeds. For the period from 1st April, 1969, to 30th September, 1969, the business under this name was carried on by one Jaipal and Ajaipal, petitioner No. 1. With effect from 1st October, 1969, the business was carried on by a new firm constituted of Jaipal and three others. Ajaipal, petitioner No. 1, is a minor and Sukhnandan, petitioner No. 2, is his father and guardian. For the aforesaid assessment year 1969-70 two assess...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Ram and ors. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Regional ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All366
S.J. Hyder, J.1. The business of operating public service vehicles is a traderegulated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The process of regulation of the trade and the hierarchy of the Tribunal constituted to give effect to the regulatory provisions of the Act is in itself a fruitful source of litigation between persons competing to enter or to expand their trade. A further complication has been introduced by the policy of nationalising some routes. Another factor which has contributed to increased litigation is that the State Government has looked at the problem of public interest from different standpoints from time to time. All these elements have combined together and are reflected in the present bunch of five writ petitions which we are called upon to decide. Since the question of factual involvement in all these cases are common and the dispute in the writ petition relates to the same route we propose to decide these writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Satpal Kishanlal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC115(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. In this revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, theapplicant-dealer has challenged the order imposing a penalty upon him under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The amount of penalty is Rs. 1,800 and it relates to the year 1977-78.2. During the course of assessment proceedings for the year aforesaid, the applicant's accounts were rejected and its turnover determined by estimate. The order was upheld in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, who reduced the taxable turnover to some extent. The assessment order was affirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in second appeal.3. There was a survey of the business premises of the dealer on 23rd April, 1977, during which a diary was found containing entry of sale of a steel box for Rs. 400. This was not entered in the account books nor was any cash memo issued. The case of the dealer was that the amount aforesaid represented part payment received by him towards sale on credit and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All273
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's writ petition arising out of a suit Under Section 138/176, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff's father had claimed half share in the disputed property. 2. It had been alleged that the plaintiff had contributed to the extent of half the consideration of sale deed to his uncle Surajmal and he had been in possession over his half share and the defendants had denied the claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the recital in the sale deed indicating 1/21 share of the plaintiff in the disputed property, hence the suit. 3. The defence in the suit was the denial of the plaintiff's share in the disputed property and it was alleged that the plaintiff's name was mentioned in the sale deed to the extent of 1/21 share on the request of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had not contributed towards sale consideration and that the property belonged to the defendants' father Surajmal and various other pleas were taken. 4. The tri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goel Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(All)274; [1982]135ITR511(All); [1982]10TAXMAN92(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, has referred the following question to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessee was barred by time ?'The question relates to the income-tax assessment of M/s. Goel Brothers for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. M/s. Goel Brothers had filed income-tax return for the aforesaid years in the status of a firm. The ITO took the view that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Goel Brothers actually belonged to M/s. Kanodia Brothers and, consequently, the income returned by M/s. Goel Brothers was included in the income of Kanodia Brothers while making their assessments. Protective assessments were, however, made on M/s. Goel Brothers for all these years in the status of an unregistered firm.2. M/s. Kanodia Broth...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All226
ORDER1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of Section 2 of U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, (U. P. Ordinance 26 of 1981), (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance 26 of 1981). This Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor on 14th Dec. 1981, on being satisfied that the circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action.2. The main challenge before us in this petition was that of (validity of?) Section 2 of the Ordinance, which amended Section 6 of U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads Adhiniyam 1961, (hereinafter (referred) to as the Adhiniyam) Section 2 of the Ordinance is reproduced below.'2. In Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zilla Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the principal Act. (a) in Sub-section (1), after clause (v) the following clause shall be inserted, namely(vi) Such persons as are nominated (sic) with the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »