Allahabad Court April 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.
Lalit Kumar Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2208(All)
V.N. Misra, J.1. These are two connected Criminal Revisions Criminal Revision No. 1756 of 1980 is by Lalit Kumar against the judgment and order dated 22-10-1980 by Sri S.N. Tandon, VIII, Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1979 by means of which he maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 85(1) (iii) (vi) (vii) (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, but reduced the sentence from two years R.I. on these counts to nine months' R.I. Criminal Revision No. 213 of 1981 is against this very order of the Additional Sessions Judge but only in respect of that portion of the order by means of which the sentence of the applicant was reduced.2. Briefly stated, the facts involved in the case are that on 12-10-1974 a joint raid was made by the Central Excise Department. Income-tax and Sales Tax and the police at the residence of Chandra Prakash and that Lalit Kumar applicant son of Chandra Prakash was not present, but Chandra Prakash himself was present in t...
Chandra Katha Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1982
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(All)317; [1982]138ITR168(All); [1982]10TAXMAN252(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that a part of the consideration received by the assessee on the transfer of the business as a going concern was referable to the plant and machinery ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, profit under Section 41(2) on the transfer of such plant and machinery was rightly assessed ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no right of appeal against the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Question No. 3 stands covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this court in CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram : [1980]121ITR708(All) . In view of that decision the Tribunal was right in holding th...
Arihant Singh Sachan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1419
ORDERP.N. Goel, J.1. Sri G. P. Dixit, Advocate for the applicant, has been heard. On the basis of a police report, the applicant has been summoned to meet various offences punishable Under Sections 419, 420. 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. All these offences are triable as a, warrant case by the Magistrate. The Magistrate has supplied copies of the prosecution papers in accordance with Section 207 Cr. P.C. The Magistrate will now proceed in accordance with Section 239. He will examine the applicant and then on a consideration of the prosecution papers and the statement of the applicant (accused) and after hearing both the parties, if he considers that the allegations against the applicant are not triable by him, he shall discharge the applicant.2. Correctly speaking, the applicant wants this Court to exercise the powers of the Magistrate given to him Under Section 239. So far the applicant has not ventilated his grievance before the Magistrate.3. The Court is required to exercise inherent pow...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.B. Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All318
K.N. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, dated 25-9-1980 making the award rule of the court. 2. S. B. Singh appellant is the sole proprietor of the Firm Messrs. S. B. Singh & Sons which carries on business at Deoria. The Firm entered into a contract on 21-8-1970 with the appellant for the purchase of released bridge girders. It appears that later on a dispute arose between the parties and in pursuance of the terms of the contract the dispute was referred for adjudication to Sri K. M. Mall, Deputy General Manager of the North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, who was appointed as the sole arbitrator without intervention of court Sri Mall gave his award on 1-12-1971 but he did not file the same in court. On July 10, 1972 an application was made on behalf of the defendant (plaintiff?) respondent to summon the award from the arbitrator and to make the same rule of the court. The application was purported to be filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Ar...
Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR904(All); [1984]16TAXMAN403(All)
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the assessee in the circumstances stated hereinafter.2. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1974-75 for the first time on 5th October, 1974, by the TTO, 'A' Ward, Circle II, Lucknow. A copy of the assessment order is annexure 1 to the writ petition. A notice was thereafter issued under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the assessee regarding the excess rebate allowed to him. It appears that the assessee had no objection to the proposed rectification, hence the mistake was rectified by order dated 12th February, 1975 (annexure 2) to the writ petition. It further appears that a notice under Section 210 was issued for this year demanding an advance tax of Rs. 3,368 which was revised to Rs. 5,449 on 17th December, 1973, under Section 210(3) of the I.T. Act. The Commissioner took up the matter suo motu and passed order under Section 263(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on 30th ...
Shushil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1992
S.J. Hyder, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated Nov. 13, 1981 passed by the Dist. Magistrate, Allahabad in the purported exercise of his power under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', directing the detention of the petitioner in the Central prison, Naini under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner contends his detention in the Central prison Naini is illegal and void and that writ of habeas corpus may be issued directing his release from the Central Prison, forthwith. Besides the Supdt Central Jail, Naini, the Distt. Magistrate and the State of U.P. have also been impleaded as opposite parties.2. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner in a law abiding citizen and has no previous criminal record. It is contended by him that he is an active member of the Lok Dal and the members of the ruling party are against him and apprehend that on ac...
Jangali Tewari (Since Deceased) Vs. Babban Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All316
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal in a suit for declaration that the property in suit, which is in the nature of agricultural land, is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree in Suit No. 131 of 1962 against the second defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers. The land was sold for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 500/- by a registered sale deed, dated the 14th Sept. 1962 during the pendency of the said Suit No. 131 of 1962 by the second defendant to the plaintiff. After the decree in Suit No. 131 of 1962 the land was attached in execution Case No. 64 of 1966 and the plaintiff's objection under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. C. being unsuccessful, he filed the suit giving rise to this Second Appeal.2. The defence was that the sale deed was a fraudulent and sham transaction, and that the plaintiff and the second defendant lived jointly and the land in suit continued to be in their -joint possession. One detailed analysis and apprais...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Novelty Trading Corporation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]150ITR453(All); [1983]13TAXMAN312(All)
Rastogi, J.1. In this group of cases the assessees are engaged in export business. The dispute is in regard to the assessees' claim for weighted deduction in respect of salary and other expenses under Section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961. So far as salary expenses are concerned for the purposes of Section 35B of the Act, the claim has been accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent of 75 per cent. This has been done following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J. Hemchand & Co. v. 2nd, ITO, B-II Ward, Bombay (I.T.A. No. 3255 of 1976-77) dated June 17, 1978. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-assessee in I.T.A. No. 163 of 1981, in which it has been stated that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has accepted the correctness of the decision of the Special Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of J. Hemchand & Co. v. 2nd ITO (I.T.A. No. 3255 of 1976-77) and further that several Commissioners of Income-tax have iss...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Umrao Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(All)269; [1982]136ITR49(All); [1982]11TAXMAN41(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the assessee, Sri Umrao Lal, an individual, should have filed the returns of his net wealth by 30th June, 1970, and 30th Juno, 1971, respectively. He, however, filed them on April 17, 1971, and December 7, 1972, for these two years, respectively. The WTO made the assessment and for the delay that had occurred in the filing of the returns took action under Section 18(l)(a) of the Act. The notices were duly served on the assessee on September 2, 1972. The assessee did not appear on the date fixed nor did he file any written explanation. It appears that some time during the pendency of the proceedings, the officer, who had initiated the same, was transferred and was succeeded by another officer. The successor officer passed penalty orders for both these years on September 14, 1973. He took the view that in spite of service of n...
Union of India Vs. Judicial Magistrate (Eastern Railway), Mughalsarai, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(All)45; [1983]140ITR553(All)
P. N. BAKSHI J. - Station Officer, G.R.P., informed the Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi, that on December 25, 1981, one Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, son of Hira Lal Jaiswal, resident of Imamganj, Durga Devi, Mirzapur, was travelling by 2-DN Kalka Mail in a three tier bogie. From his possession currency notes of the value of Rs. 4,63,000 and some clothes were recovered which had been kept in a brief case. Vinod Kumar has been challenged under ss. 41/102, Cr. PC read with s. 411, I.P.C. The Commissioner having reason to believed that the assets represented undisclosed income, issued warrant of authorization under s. 132A of the I.T. Act (From No. 45C) read with r. 112D of the I.T. Rules, 1962, in he name of the Station House Officer, G. R. P. Mughalsari, appointing Sri S. N. Kapor as the authorities officer and directing him to take possession and control of the assets. It appears that the S.H.O, G.R.P., Varanasi, did not deliver possession of the seized currency unless orders have been obt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »