Allahabad Court May 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.
Kalpu and anr. Vs. Sanaurar Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1982All307
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendant's Second Appeal from a decree for Rs. 100/- as damages against the defendants Nos. 1 to 5, a mandatory injunction against them to fill up two ditches shown on the map (paper No. 45-C), which forms part of the decree of the trial court, and for a prohibitory injuriestion perpetually restraining the said defendants from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 over plots Nos. 136 and 205.2. The dispute between the parties centres round four mango trees shown by the figures 1 to 3 and 15 and a bamboo clump, which are situate on plot No. 136 to the west of plots Nos. 135 and 205. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the bhumidhars in possession of plots Nos. 135 and 205. There is also no dispute that plot No. 136 does notbelong to the plaintiffs, but was recorded as Banjar and the contesting defendants' house is situate on that plot. The plaintiffs claimed that...
S.P. Kochhar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)49; [1984]145ITR255(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. These two petitions can be conveniently taken up together. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under: The petitioner, S. P. Kochhar, an individual, is proprietor of a business carried on in the name and style of Dehra Dun Land and Housing Corporation. The business is that of coloniser and a dealer in real estate. On May 19, 1967, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd., Dehra Dun (hereinafter referred to as ' the company'). This company was the absolute owner of a bungalow and land surrounding, bearing No. 52, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, having a total area of 8 bighas 17 biswas and 10 biswansis (71,876 sq. ft.). The company agreed to sell and the petitioner agreed to purchase this property for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as earnest money and promised to pay the balance before or at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The petitioner could buy the property in his own name or i...
Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR69(All); [1982]10TAXMAN309(All)
Rastogi, J. 1. The assessee, Sri Vishnu Kumar Gupta, karta of an HUF, filed his return for the assessment year 1970-71, the previous year ended March 31, 1970, on 22nd July, 1971. He declared his income at Rs. 33,838, the details being as under :Rs.1.Property income1522.Share from M/s. Radhey Lal Devicharan33,0113.Annuity deposit1,400 34,563 Less : LIP rebate725 33,8382. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ITO issued a noticeunder Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereafter 'the Act'). The-assesseecommitted default and, hence, the ITO made an ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act on November 27, 1972. The share income from M/s. Radhey Lal Devicharan was taken at Rs. 30,932. Apart from that, income from money-lending business was taken at Rs. 7,700. Under the head ' Other sources ', the following interest income was taken :Rs.1. Interestfrom Sheo Kumar Gupta1,5002.Interest from M/s. Devicharan CommercialCorporation5,4003.Interest from M/s. Ram Kumar Ram Krish...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Baldeoji Maharaj Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(All)79; [1983]142ITR584(All); [1982]10TAXMAN269(All)
K.N. Seth, J. 1. For the assessment year 1974-75 the assessee filed its return of income on September 20, 1974, showing an income of Rs. 16,894. The auditor's report in the prescribed form as required by Section 12A of the I.T. Act was not attached to the return. The assessee filed a revised return on January 31, 1975, along with the auditor's report. It appears that for the assessment year 1974-75 the Department prescribed a new form of return. The assessee, consequently, filed another return on March 29, 1975, on the prescribed form along with the auditor's report. The assessee's total income exceeded Rs. 25,000. The ITO rejected the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that it had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 12A(b) as its income, without giving effect to the provisions of Sections 11 and 12, exceeded Rs. 25,000 and the accounts were not got audited by the time the original return was filed. The ITO further held that the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sita Ram Sri Kishan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(All)291; [1983]141ITR685(All); [1982]11TAXMAN52(All)
Seth, J.1. The assessee-firm carries on business in Khand, Dane, etc., on its own account as well as on commission basis. The ITO while making assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, noticed that in the balance-sheet there was an account under the style, ' Amanat Kkata ' with a creditbalance of Rs. 29,028. This amount was realised from the 'constituents by the assessee and represented Krishi Utpadam Mandi Tax payable under Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act. The assessee took the stand that the amount could not be taxed as it maintained the accounts under mercantile system and that it had to pay the balance either to Krishi Utpadan Mandi or the constituents from whom it was realised. The ITO brought this amount to tax. On appeal, the AAC took the view that the liability to pay Krishi Utpadan Mandi Tax had accrued in the assessee's case. He found that the assessee had received various' notices of demand from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra. It clearly indicated that the liability had accrue...
Dhan Raj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(All)215; [1983]140ITR652(All); [1983]12TAXMAN93(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts are these. For the assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 the petitioner made an application on August 28, 1974, under Section 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act (hereafter 'the Act'), to the Commissioner, Kanpur. The petitioner disclosed his income for these years in that petition and made a prayer that penalty as imposable under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273(b) and interest chargeable under Section 139 and Section 217 of the Act may be waived or reduced. After that disclosure application, the ITO issued notices under Section 148 of the Act and pursuant thereto the assessee filed returns. The ITO made the assessments for these years on January 31, 1975. The details of income returned and assessed were as under :AssessmentyearIncomereturnedIncomeassessedRs.Rs.1970-711,38814,6801971-7228,58529,5421972-7321,13822,3101973-7416,38617,1502. It may be noted that the difference between the income returned and t...
Gangadhar Ramchand and anr. Vs. the Sales Tax Tribunal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC129(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This petition is directed against order dated 17th April, 1982, passed by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, directing the stay application filed on behalf of assessee to be placed before a Bench consisting of two members on 4th May, 1982. This direction obviously was made because the amount of tax involved was more than Rs. 5,000. A reading of Section 10(10) read with Rule 69(5) makes it clear that the restriction of hearing of appeal by a Bench consisting of two members is only in respect of appeals. It does not apply to stay application. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 69 reads as under :An application for stay under Section 10(6) may be heard and disposed of irrespective of the amount involved.2. In view of this provision the stay application of the assessee could have been decided by the single member and it was not necessary to direct it to be listed before a Bench consisting of two members.3. In the circumstances this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S. Rice Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(All)276; [1982]136ITR761(All)
Seth, J.1. The assessee-firm was constituted with effect from October 10, 1970. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the assessee failed to put up any claim under Section 80J of the LT. Act before the ITO. In appeal before the AAC, the assessee claimed benefit under Section 80J on the ground that it was a newly constituted firm and was entitled to the benefit of that provision. The AAC rejected the claim on the reasoning that no relief under Section 80J was claimed either in the returns or in the assessment proceedings before the ITO. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. : [1972]84ITR723(Orissa) , held that the assessee was entitled to claim benefit under Section 80J and directed that for both the years under consideration the ITO will examine the claim of the assessee on merits after giving an opportunity to the assessee and pass or...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ajaipat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(All)277; [1982]137ITR88(All); [1982]11TAXMAN80(All)
Rastogi, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this court the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, hereafter'the Tribunal', has referred the following questions under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, hereafter 'the Act', for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rule 113 of the Wealth-tax Rules overrides the provisions of Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is open to the revenue to rely on Rule 1D even though no specific argument was raised before the Tribunal ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in following the valuation as made by the valuers even though the valuation was not based on the statutory method of valuation provided under Rule 1D? 4. Whether, the valuers to whom the valuation of shares was referred under Section 24(6) of the Act, were, in law, bound to follow the. method of v...
Brij Rattan Lal Bhoop Kishore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(All)199; [1982]136ITR722(All)
Seth, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer assessing the firm as registered was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because one of the partners signed on behalf of the other partners under specific authority and no opportunity having been given to remove the defects, if any, when admittedly the Income-tax Officer had knowledge of the fact prior to the assessment ?'2. The assessee-firm consisted of four partners, namely, Brij Rattan Lal, Bhoop Kishore, Ram Swamp and Jado Saran. The firm was initially registered under Section 185(1) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 1964-65. The constitution of the firm remained unchanged till the assessment year 1968-69 to which this reference relates. For the assessment y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »