Allahabad Court September 1982 Judgments
Trackpart of India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD489(All.)
1. to 4. [These Paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. The next grievance relates only to the assessment year 1974-75 and is against inclusion in the assessee's total income of an amount of Rs. 1,05,227. There was a firm by the name of Trackparts of India which was carrying on business of manufacture of track components of Crawler Tractors, etc., at Kanpur. It had placed an order with Jonker-Du Croo N.V. of Amsterdam sometime in 1968 for the import of, among other items, links. However, on receipt of the shipment, it was found that the consignment was damaged, was in loose condition and there were a number or shortages as found by the surveyors. A claim was, therefore, lodged by the firm by a letter dated 8-11-1968 with Jonker-Du Croo N.V., that is, the supplier of the equipments, to investigate at their end and find out from the shippers about the shortages and also register their claim for shortages. The business of this firm was taken over by the assesseeco...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razzak Vs. Smt. Sharifunnisa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas426(All)
K.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur, awarding a sum of Rs. 26,400 as compensation to the respondent-claimants.2. Mohammad Ibrahim and Mohammad Nasir hired a public carrier bearing registration No. USF 4322 which was owned by Abdul Razzak, appellant, and insured with New India Insurance Company, respondent No. 7,for carrying onions from a village in District Fatehpur to Kanpur. Afterloading the onions into the vehicle, Mohd. Ibrahim and Mohd. Nasir whowere, co-owners of the goods, boarded the public carrier along with Saeedand Majid in the driver's cabin along with the owner who was driving thevehicle. At about 3.30 a.m. on May 3, 1975, the truck capsized at a placefour furlongs to the west of village Malwan on the Grand Trunk Road. Theleft side of the vehicle fell on the road and the right side went upwards.The left side window of the vehicle got opened and Majid ...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Bahadur Srivastava and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ751
ORDERS.Z. Hasan, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of Sri Kamleshwar Nath, Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting and sentencing the revisionists to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. On 18-7-1977, Food Inspector R. K. Srivastava (P. W. 1) took sample of refined groundnut oil from the shop of Shiva Mangal Prasad Misra accused (D. W. 1) at which Fateh Bahadur Srivastava accused (D. W. 2) was sitting. At that time the owner of the shop was not present. After necessary proceedings the sample was sent to Public Analyst who reported that it contained 31% cotton seed oil and, therefore, it was adulterated. After obtaining the necessary sanction both the accused were prosecuted. P. W. 1, R. K. Srivastava Food Inspector and P. W. 2 Keshav Prasad his Orderly were examined as eye-witnesses. The accused denied t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhudhar Singh and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)28; [1983]143ITR322(All)
R.B. Lal, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the penalty order instead of setting it aside for a fresh hearing and disposal by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?'.2. The material facts lie in a brief compass. The 1AC imposed a penalty of Rs. 37,412 on the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68; under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal, the imposition of penalty was challenged on merits and also on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee. The Tribunal found as a fact that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the assessee before the imposition, of the penalty and it went to the root of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Krishi Yantra Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC343(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This revision has been filed by M/s. Kishan Krishi Yantra Udyog, Kanpur, and pertains to the assessment year 1975-76.2. The assessee carries on the business of manufacture and sale of paddy dehusker, rice polisher, winnower and other agricultural implements. The assessee has claimed exemption from sales tax for his sales of paddy dehusker, rice polisher amounting to Rs. 48,965 in view of Notification No. ST-2783/X- 902(60)-59 dated 1st June, 1963, as amended by Notification No. ST-351/X- 902(60)-59 dated 5th February, 1968. The exemption was claimed on the ground that the assessee-firm was manufacturing goods for Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay, for the manufacture of paddy dehusker, rice polisher and grader-cum-winnower. It also claimed that its sale of winnower, the trade name of which was ghuria chalna, was manually operated and was an agricultural implement.3. The Sales Tax Officer declined to give exemption to the assessee. The assessee appealed. I...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Appellate Tribunal Vs. Jananmandal Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(All)50; [1983]143ITR228(All); [1983]13TAXMAN424(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. These three references may conveniently be disposed of together. I.T.R. No. 765 of 1975 relates to the assessment years 1958-59 to 1970-71. The Tribunal has referred the following common question in respect of all these years :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material on the record to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee-company was maintaining the cash system of accounting '2. This very question has been referred to in I.T.R. No. 432 of 1976, which relates to the assessment year 1972-73. In I.T.R. No. 834 of 1977 arising out of the assessment year 1972-73, apart from the aforesaid question, which is referred to as question No. (i), two other questions have been referred for the opinion of this court. They are :' (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of accounting employed by the assessee is such that the income for the assessment year 1971-72 could be properly deduced ther...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Industries Limited and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC96(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company carrying business of manufacturing vegetable oil, iron and steel, torch, soap, sugar paints, etc., in its various units.2. For the assessment year 1967-68 by an order dated 29th March, 1972, tax was assessed at Rs. 37,94,875.76. Since a sum of Rs. 35,67,256.43 had deposited by the assessee, a demand for the balance amount was issued b Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner made an application under Section 22 Sales Tax Act pointing out certain apparent mistakes in the assessment inasmuch as credit for the entire amount deposited by the petitioner w; given in the assessment order. By an order dated 20th July, 1972, the or assessment order was rectified and the demand was reduced to Rs. 24,959.243. Thereafter, a notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued by the Sale Officer and by an order dated 29th March, 1974, an additional demai Rs. 10,000 was created. Against the original assessment order as w against the order passed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Vs. U.P. State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2130
P.N. Goel, J. 1. Sushil Kumar has moved this application to review the judgment dated 12-4-1982 : Reported in 1982 Cri LJ 1992 (All) in his habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The District Judge, Allahabad by order dated 3-11-1981 directed the detention of the petitioner Sushil Kumar in Central Prison, Naini under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The Bench constituting of myself and Hon'ble S. J. Hyder, J., after hearing the parties counsel and carefully considering the cases cited found that the order of detention was not in any way bad in law. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed,2. Sri D. S. Misra, Advocate for the applicant has been heard at length.3. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma : 1979CriLJ908 it was held that the power of review inheres in every High Court and there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court for exercising the power of review to prevent m...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD516(All.)
1. The only contention in this appeal is that the AAC was not justified in confirming the order of the ITO with reference to the inclusion of Rs. 24,130 being the share of the assessee's wife, Smt. Suhasini Singh from the firm of Heer Palace. 2, There are two firms Heer Palace and Rupam Theatre. Their respective constitutions are as under:1. B.P. Singh 20 per cent 1. Smt. Heer Kali Devi (HUF)4. H.N. Singh 17 1/2percent Singh (Ind.) 20 percent (Ind.)5. Nand Kumar 3. Shri Shailendra Singh (Ind.) 15 percent K. Singh (Ind.) 20 percent From the above, it would be seen that Shri B.P. Singh is a partner in Heer Palace in a representative capacity representing his HUF. In this very firm, his wife Smt. Suhasini Singh is also a partner. Shri B.P.Singh, the assessee, is also a partner in Rupam Theatre. In this firm he is a partner in his individual capacity. His wife is, however, not a partner in this firm.3. The assessee had returned only the share from Rupam Theatre amounting to Rs. 20,730. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shanker Alias Munshi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC130(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This revision has been filed by the assessee and pertains to the assessment year 1972-73.2. The assessee was aggrieved by an order of assessment. Since the assessee had filed an appeal under Section 9, he was required to make a deposit of 20 per cent of the assessed tax. He did not deposit the tax and made an application for waiver. Various applications were made on which time to make the deposit was given. Ultimately, an application was filed on which, according to the assessee, no order was made and the appeal was taken up on 29th February, 1979 and was rejected on account of the requisite deposit not being made.3. The assessee deposited a certain amount on 3rd May, 1979 and also filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not deposited 20 per cent of the tax which was required to be deposited. The Tribunal further held that the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was justified in rejecting the m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »