Allahabad Court March 1982 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himalaya Drug Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(All)315; [1982]135ITR368(All)
Rastogi, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate, Delhi Bench-B (hereafter 'the Tribunal'), has made this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the cancellation of the Income-tax Officer's order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there was no prior order passed by the Income-tax Officer for levy of interest under Section 139(1)(b)(iii) ?'The brief facts are these; The respondent-assessee, M/s. Himalaya Drug Company, Dehradun, is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1970-71, it filed its return on January 27, 1971, that is, after a delay of 27 days. The ITO made the assessment and while preparing ITNS-150 a sum of Rs. 382 was charged as interest under Section 139(1) of the Act, taking the status of the assessee as that of a registered firm. Subsequently, the ITO found that interest had been wrongly charged treating the a...
Ashok Griha Udyog Kendra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT309(All)
ORDERR.R. Rastogi, J.1. It would be convenient to dispose of this bunch of writ petitions in a common order. The question for consideration is as to whether mixed ground Masala is liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68. Tariff Item No. 68 was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975 and on its introduction it read as under :-'68. ALL OTHER GOODS, NOT ELSEWHERE One per cent ad SPECIFIED, MANUFACTURED IN A FACTORY valorem. BUT EXCLUDING-(a) alcohol, all sorts, including alcoholic liquors for human consumption;(b) opium, Indian|hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics and(c) dutiable goods as defined in Section 2(c) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955.Explanation : In this term, the 'Factory' has the meaning assigned to it in Section 2(m) of the factories Act, 1948'.By the Finance Act, 1979 the exclusions remained as before but the description of the Tariff Item was modified so as to read : 'All other goods not elsewhere specified.' The Finance (No. 2) Act...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Civil Engineering Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(All)279; [1982]136ITR38(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the following question has been referred by the I.T. Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that profit on the cost of materials supplied by the Government could be assessed only if the assessee had calculated such profit while giving tenders and had adjusted its rates on that basis and, therefore, in setting aside the assessments and restoring the matter back to the file of the Income-tax Officer for examining the issue afresh ?'2. The brief facts are these. The assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72, the corresponding accounting periods ending on 30th June, 1969, and 30th June, 1970, respectively. The assessee, a registered firm, carries on the business of undertaking contracts under the public works dept. authorities. For the assessment year 1970-71, the as...
Sri Nath Murari Lal, Saraf Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC378; 1983(12)ELT467(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. The petitioner was holding a licence under the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 for the year 1973-74. The petitioner applied for renewal of their licence in the year 1974 alongwith the requisite licensing fee. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Varanasi, respondent No. 3 calling upon him to show-cause why their licence should not be cancelled under Section 50(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 in view of the fact that the transactions made by the petitioner were too low within the meaning of Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice and also appeared through counsel before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Varanasi. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise rejected the petitioner's application for the grant of licence. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Central Exc...
O.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(All)295; [1982]138ITR689(All); [1982]10TAXMAN209(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This writ petition and the income-tax reference can be disposed of by a common order. By this writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner dated 29th April, 1978, and the assessment order dated 10th February, 1967, and also prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner to rehear the revision petition and direct the ITO to include the sum of Rs. 2,30,000 in the income of the petitioner and to refund the sum of Rs. 11,500. There is a further prayer for a direction to the ITO, A-Ward, Circle I, Varanasi, to refund certain amounts. 2. The petitioners, M/s. O.C.M. Ltd. (London), is a non-resident company. It has got three subsidiary companies which are incorporated and which carry on business in India, namely, O.C.M. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar, E. Hill and Company Pvt. Ltd., Mirzapur, and the East India Carpet Company Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar. The petitioner enjoyed income in India o...
Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD660(All.)
1. These two appeals arise out of the consolidated order dated 31-1-1981 of the Commissioner (Appeals) II, Kanpur, for the assessment-years 1966-67 and 1967-68.2. Both these appeals were filed after a delay of 13 days and 25 days, respectively. It was pointed out by Shri A.C. Sinha, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the impugned orders were served on the assessee on 13-2-1981 and that the appeals were despatched by registered post on 7-4-1981 but were received in the office of the Tribunal only on 27-4-1981 and that, therefore, the delays being postal, were entitled to be condoned. The delays being for reasonable period, are condoned.3. The assessee-firm was constituted vide partnership deed dated 12-10-1965 with 17 major partners and 4 minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The registration was originally granted to the assessee on 27-3-1971. However, it was cancelled by the ITO under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), on the ground that th...
Vikas Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All236
A.N. Varma, J.1. The petitioners are both engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of exercise books at Hapur in the district of Ghaziabad. They are aggrieved by the refusal of the District Magistrate, Gaziabad to allot what has been described as 'concessional rate cultural variety of white printing paper' used for the purpose of fabricating exercise books.2. 'Paper' is an essential commodity as defined in Section 2(vii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under the scheme of allocation of paper to various States, the Controller (Paper), Government of India makes Statewise allocation of paper of the aforesaid variety as per requirements of various States. The State Government in its turn thereafter in consultation with the Ministry of Education and other representative bodies comprising exercise books manufacturers then makes the Districtwise allocation of the aforesaid paper. The paper allocated by the State Government to a particular district is hereafter allotted by ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ayodhya Pd. Murari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC162(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., has challenged in this revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, accepting the books of account of the dealer, opposite party in this revision, for the year 1973-74. These accounts had been rejected by the authorities below.2. The admitted position is that the dealer did not issue any cash memos in the year in question. In the opinion of the Tribunal, non-issuance of cash memos, by itself was not enough to reject the accounts even though it was imperative for the dealer to have issued those cash memos. The view of the Tribunal is not sound for it has been held by this Court that non-issuance of the cash memos in accordance with the provision of Section 8-A(4) was a sufficient ground for rejecting the accounts of the dealer: see Jamuna Das Nemi Chand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow 1979 ATJ 144 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Jaisw...
Banney Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ18
ORDERT.S. Misra, J.1. This petition arises in the following circumstances:On the report of S. H, O. Kotwali, Paizabad dated 24th April, 1974. proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. were initiated and Sri. S.R. Pandey, City Magistrate, Faizabad passed an order on the same day purporting to be under Sections 145 and 146(1) of the Criminal P. C. Thereafter an application was filed by Banney alias Nisar Ahmad alleging that the attachment of the property was made against the provisions of the Criminal P. C. hence the order of attachment be withdrawn. The learned City Magistrate after hearing the parties made the following order.-I have gone through the file and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The attachment of the property was made under Section 146(1) of Cr. P.C. which came into force on the 1st April, 1974. As such the provisions of old Cr. P.C. are not applicable in this case. Under Section 146 of New Cr. P.C. Magistrate may attach the subject of dispute until a compete...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›