Allahabad Court July 1983 Judgments
Pushpalata Vs. Inspecting Asst. Commr. of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(All)120; [1984]150ITR42(All); [1983]15TAXMAN371(All)
Ojha, J.1. The appellant, Smt. Pushpalata, along with one Smt. Kamlesh jointly purchased from one Dr Raghunath Saran house No. D-61/62-C, Sidhgiri Bagh, Varanasi, on November 9, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,500. The IAC, Acquisition Range, Lucknow, on receipt of intimation in Form No. 37G, obtained a report from the Inspector and being of the view that it was a case for initiation of proceedings under Chap. XXA of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition, initiated these proceedings. The requisite notice was published in the Govt. of India Gazette, and copies of the same were served on the transferor and the transferees aforesaid. The question of valuation of the properties aforesaid was referred by the IAC to the valuation officer, who, adopting the land and building method and submitted a report that the fair market value of the house aforesaid was Rs. 71,600. The vendees aforesaid riled their reply contesting the fair market value determined by the valuationo...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1737
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5-5-1983 recorded by Sri R. B. L. Khandelwal, Sessions Judge, Varanasi on an application by informant Babulal for cancellation of bail granted to revisionists by learned Munsif-Magistrate, II, Varanasi relating to Crime No 32 of 1983, Police Station Rohania district Varanasi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 435 and 295 I.P.C. on 14-2-1983.2. Learned Sessions Judge observed that Section 307, I.P.C. was punishable with imprisonment for Life and so in view of proviso to Section 437 of the Cr. P.C. Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail in this case to revisionists as neither any of them was under 16 years of age nor women or sick or infirm person.3. Parties were heard and the impugned order was recorded.4. Learned Advocate for revisionists argued before me that learned Magistrate had power to enlarge the revisionists on bail and there was no lack of jurisdiction. In this connection reliance was plac...
Tag this Judgment!Hind Lamps Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC303(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee and pertains to the assessment year 1974-75.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of bulbs, etc. There are only two disputes in the case.(1) Whether the sale of coal-dust by the assessee is liable to be assessed to sales tax ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the tax on the sales of aluminium and brass caps made from the bulbs at the rate of 12 per cent treating them as a component of bulb instead of an unclassified item ?3. I will take up the first question first.4. The assessee purchased coal which it used in the its factory. The residue of the coal is left which is sold by the assessee. The assessee filed invoices which have been accepted. The invoices showed that the assessee had purchased coal from M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Limited, Kanpur, which was a registered dealer in Uttar Pradesh.5. The Tribunal found that the invoices showed that the goods were directly purchased by the assessee from ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector Vs. Evengelical Alliance Mission and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All25
Ojha, J. 1. Two acres of land belonging to the respondents along with a building and 109 trees were sought to be acquired for the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 1st Aug.. 1973. It was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act dt. 21st Feb.. 1975 and a notification under Section 9 of the Act dt. 20th Mar., 1975. After issuing notice? to the claimant-respondents the Lanj Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation payable to them at Rs. 19,561-66. Break-up of this compensation was as follows :--For the buildingsRs. 11,190-00For two acres of landRs. 3,206-14For 109 trees.Rs. 2,614-00As solatiumRs. 2,551-52Aggrieved by the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation the claimant-respondents made an application under Section 18 of the Act for a reference being made to the District Judge. In pursuance of t...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Sugar Tail Factory and ors. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All23
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. An application was made by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation Kanpur against the applicants under Section 31(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the said application the District Judge passed, an ad interim order as contemplated by Section 32(1) of the Act on 24th August, 1963 and also issued notice as contemplated by Sub-section (4) thereof to the applicants to show cause. On receipt of that application the applicants put in appearance and filed an objection. However, on the date fixed they failed 1o appear and an order was passed on 27th March 1976, confirming the ad interim order dated 24th August, 1963. Subsequently the applicants made an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 27th March, 1976, on the ground that applicant No. 2 who was looking after the case on behalf of the applicants had fallen ill and was thus unable to appear and substantiate t...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Rama Shanker Singh Bechu Ram
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD115(All.)
1. The Income-tax Department conducted a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the business premises of Ramashanker Singh Bechu Ram Motilal Hiralal, at Hazaripur, Gorakhpur, on 8-3-1976. A number of books of account and valuable articles were found in the search. On the basis of the material gathered, the ITO was of the view that by reason of the omission and failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 of the Act. its income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 1969-70. The ITO, accordingly, sought approval of the Commissioner in the status of an AOP. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was subsequently issued to the assessee on 26-2-1977 which was served on 18-3-1977. This notice did not give the status. On receipt of the notice, the assessee wrote to the ITO that it was not clear in which status the return was required to be filed. The assessee also requested the ITO to communicate the status for...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. Vs. Parekh Marketing P. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas886(All)
B.D. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned company judge dated August 16, 1982, in Company Petition No. 7 of 1982;2. The petition giving rise to the appeal was presented by the respondent creditor against the appellant on May 21, 1982, under Section 439(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of the company. Learned company judge directed notice to issue. In compliance with the order dated May 21, 1982, notice was issued to the company and also to the directors for August 16, 1982, under registered cover. The office reported that acknowledgments had not returned nor were the notices received back undelivered. Learned company judge thereupon passed the impugned order on August 16, 1982, which reads :' Service held sufficient on the respondent company under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court. The petition for winding up shall be advertised in the newspaper, Hindustan Times, published from New Delhi and Nav Bharat Times, also publish...
Tag this Judgment!Brahma Swaroop and ors. Vs. Shamsher Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All14
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal from a decree for damages in the sum of Rs. 50/- and injunction restraining the appellants from demolishing a wall A B as shown in the plaint map. The trial court had dismissed the suit and the decree under appeal was passed by the court, of the Civil Judge, Rampur on 26th Mar., 1981, on appeal from the trial court's decree, after rejecting the application moved on behalf of the defendants, who were respondents in the appeal before the lower appellate court, by their counsel for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal, on the ground that he was busy in other cases and was unable to attend that court on that day. 2. The lower appellate court's order rejecting the application for adjournment runs thus : '25-3-81 : Sri K. Chandra for appellant. The respondent who was present a little while ago is absent now. 12-D is an adjournment application by the counsel for the respondent stating that he is busy in other courts and he is unable...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, D.A.V. Higher Secondary School Vs. Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984All1
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings relating to a Civil Suit, It is not necessary to state the facts and controversies which were involved in the Original Suit No. 367 of 1980 which was pending in the court of the Munsif I, Rampur. However, the relevant brief facts may be noticed, 13-5-1981 was the date fixed for framing of issues. On the said date the case was called out and it was dismissed with costs by an order dated 13-5-1981, a true copy of which is Annexure 9 to the petition. The order is reproduced below:--'Case called. Sri A. R. Siddique Advocate Counsel for the plaintiff pleads that he has no instructions. This case yesterday came before me with an application on behalf of the defendant and it was opposed by the counsel for the plaintiff and as he was not ready case was adjourned for today. The learned counsel, therefore, cannot plead no instructions. There issues have to be framed on the pleading...
Tag this Judgment!Millan Bone Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(All)101; [1984]149ITR663(All); [1984]17TAXMAN118(All)
Seth, J. 1. The papers in connection with this writ petition were placed before us today for considering the prayer for interim relief. Asthe parties have exchanged their affidavits, learned counsel appealing for them requested that instead of considering the prayer for interim relief, we should hear and dispose of the petition itself on merits. We have accordingly heard counsel for both the parties on merits of the petition itself and are proceeding to dispose of the same.2. By this petition under art, 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays that the order dated February 23, 1980, passed by the Commissioner Agra, refusing to waive/reduce the penalty and interest in exercise of powers under Section 273A of the I.T. Act, be quashed.3. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. For the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, it filed its income-tax returns late but before any notice was issued to ii under Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act. Eventually, the ITO passed the as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »