Allahabad Court May 1983 Judgments
Smt. Kalindri Devi Vs. Balloo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All9
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a defendant's Second Appeal from an ex parte decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed on first appeal by the Lower Appellate Court. The ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court after the defendant-appellant's counsel, Mr. Ganga Ram Talwar, had reported 'no instructions' and did not participate in the further hearing, although he remained present in the Court. The defendant-appellant's husband, who was her pairokar, was also present, but took no steps for the further defence of the case, although the trial Court did also grant some short time to him to properly instruct some counsel.2. The complaint of the learned counsel for the appellant is that after Sri Ganga Ram Talwar had reported 'no instructions', the trial Court could only proceed under Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Civil P. C., that is to say in one of the rnodes prescribed by Order 9, but the operative portion of the decree passed by the trial Court says that the suit was being decreed again...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Prasad Sidh Gopal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)35; [1984]148ITR760(All); [1983]15TAXMAN191(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Claim of allowability of interest and commission in 1959-60 and 1960-61 (ITR No. 108 of 1982), expenditure on litigation and establishment in 1961-62 to 1965-66 (ITR No. 185 of 1973), and bad debt in 1966-67 (ITR No. 1231 of 1976) by the assessee shall principally depend on the construction of the agreement, dated October 26, 1954, entered into between the assessee, a firm registered and constituted with the object of carrying on business as sole distributors for sale of yarn and cloth manufactured by three textile mills, and B.R. & Sons, their sole selling agents, and the award given by the Tribunal of Arbitration, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, on August 27, 1964, in a dispute between them.2. Although these references arise out of different orders passed by the Tribunal, they stem out of the same transaction, and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. Under an agreement of 1954, the assessee was to invest Rs. 25 lakhs for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarju Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(All)322; [1984]148ITR718(All); [1983]15TAXMAN99(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law for opinion to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no occasion and no obligation on the part of the assessee to file a revised estimate under Section 212(3A) of the Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to move an application under Section 154 for rectification of a mistake regarding charging of interest under Section 217(1A) of the Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the orders of the authorities below ?' 2. The assessee was a partner in the firm, M/s. Janki Sugar Mills and Co., Dohiwala District, Dehradun, which was taken over by the Government of India under Section 18AA(1) of the Industries (Developmen...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiprasad Carpets (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(All)67; [1984]148ITR710(All); [1983]15TAXMAN40(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the assessee, a private limited company, what survives for consideration is whether the commission paid by the assessee to its directors having been found to have been for commercial expediency could be curtailed by the Tribunal as excessive or unreasonable because it resulted in the diversion of the major profit to the directors.2. Although, on facts found, the application under Section 256(1) of the assessee for referring the question of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal was rejected, it was allowed by this court under Section 256(2). Consequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, referred the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing part of the commission paid to the directors of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1975-76 ?'3. In the return filed for the assessment year 1975-76, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Chandra Kala Garg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)26; [1984]148ITR737(All); [1983]15TAXMAN166(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the deceased had only 1/4th share in the agricultural holding which alone passed on his death on February 13, 1974? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the right to receive the 1,680bonus shares in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. did not accrue to the deceased till February 13, 1974, the date of his death ?' 2. Facts found by the Tribunal on share of the deceased in agricultural holding are that after the death of Chunni Lal in 1962, it was entered in the revenue records and records of Nagar Mahapalika in the name of his son, late Sri S.D. Garg, husband of the accountable person, his wife and two sons of Sri Garg. The Tribunal found that although there was no ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radha Agarwal and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1983
Reported in: I(1984)ACC386; AIR1984All119
K.N. Singh, J. 1. This is a claimant's appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims' Tribunal, Sitapur, dated 7-2-1979, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,53,795.34 p. as compensation.2. Ram Kishore Agarwal, a young man of 28 years was in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department. On 3-8-1977 he was travelling in a Government vehicle--a jeep bearing number UTE 4698, from Lucknow to Sitapur, on official duty, The vehicle was being driven by Hemnath who was also in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh as driver. A number of other persons were sitting in the vehicle. After covering a distance of 40 to 45 Kms. the driver lost control of the vehicle and it swerved to its right side and collided with the trunk of a tree on the right side of the road as a result of which the occupants including Ram Kishore received severe injuries. Ram Kishore Agarwal received severe injuries on his head and leg. He was rushed to the hospital where ...
Tag this Judgment!Wg. Cdr. K.P.K. Ghose Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD413(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC.2. The assessee is an individual and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1979-80. During the previous year relevant to this assessment year, the assessee participated in the contest of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Bombay for caption writing by completing a sentence praising Bombay Dyeing fabrics in a few words.The assessee's entry was adjudged for a prize and the assessee got a prize of Rs. 30,000 for this caption writing. It was claimed before the ITO that this amount was a windfall or, alternatively, it was exempt under Section 10(17A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The ITO, however, did not accept this claim and included the prize of Rs. 30,000 in the assessee's total income. When the matter went up in appeal, the AAC held that this amount of Rs. 30,000 was income within the meaning of Section 2(24)(ix) of the Act and that it was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(17A). He...
Tag this Judgment!Besant Behari Gopal Behari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(All)70; [1984]145ITR96(All); [1983]15TAXMAN335(All)
Mehrotra, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership attaining majority, a change takes place in the constitution of the firm and the execution of a fresh deed of partnership is necessary ?' 2. It also referred another question, again at the instance of the assessee, when directed by this court to do so, and that question is this: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to hold the assessment under Section 144 and grant of registration were not in two parts and the registration order passed therein was also set aside Under Section 146 along with the assessment order and, if not, whether the Income-tax Officer could cancel the registration already granted in the manner done by him without resorting to Section 186 ?' 3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Vindhya Metal Corporation and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1983
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(All)238; [1985]156ITR233(All)
Mehrotra, J. 1. While travelling from Mirzapur to Calcutta by the Kalka Mail, one Vinod Kumar Jaiswal was detained at Moghal Sarai by the Govt. Railway Police and an attache case containing a sum of Rs. 4,63,000 was seized from him on suspicion that the money was stolen property or had been obtained through some other offence. Vinod KumarJaiswal was charged under Section 411, IPC, read with Sections 41 and 102, Cr. PC, before the Railway Magistrate at Moghalsarai. This was on December 25, 1981. The Station Officer-in-charge of Govt. Railway Police, Moghal Sarai, sent an intimation to the I.T. authorities at Varanasi on December 26, 1981, about the seizure of money. On December 26 itself, Vinod Kumar was produced before a Magistrate at Mirzapur. The then IAC, Varanasi, intimated the CIT, Allahabad, on December 29, about the fact of possession of the aforesaid amount by Sri Vinod Kumar and also that he did not have any papers or documents regarding the ownership or possession of the amou...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Avadhesh Pratap Mall Vs. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1983
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(All)159; [1984]148ITR591(All); [1984]16TAXMAN93(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Faced with the piquant situation of having lost title to property in consequence of a decree passed by this court in first appeal arising out of a suit for declaration, and yet an inclusion of the same in the determination of assets, under the E.D. Act, 1953, the petitioner came to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in 1972 seeking the quashing of the order passed by the Asst. Controller, as far back as December 11, 1962.2. Before examining whether this court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction as the petitioner came to this court after a lapse of ten years, it is appropriate to narrate the background in which the events moved as it shall help not only in resolving the controversy on merits but shall assist in deciding the preliminary objection raised by learned standing counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax. One Kamal Kishore Mall was the Raja of what was known as Majhauli Estate. After his death his widow, for bre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›