Allahabad Court January 1984 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.
Kulbhushan Chawla Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC215(All)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that form XXXI under Rule 85(3) is not being issued to the petitioner unless a security of Rs. 300 is deposited in its behalf. In that connection the circular dated 11th October, 1983 (annexure I to the writ petition), has been challenged, which contains a general direction that such forms shall not be issued unless the applicant deposits as security a like amount. In fact, this direction has been occasioned on account of an extensive malpractice. A writ petition was filed in this Court in which similar matter was considered, being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 685 of 1983 in which an interim order was passed requiring the petitioner therein to deposit as security a sum of Rs. 420 per form. Since similar situation has arisen again and the petitioner asked for supply of form XXXI, in order to guard against malpractices, the department has issued the impugned circular whereby a sum of Rs. 300 is being demanded from the applicant by way o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Muir Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(All)178; [1984]148ITR418(All); [1985]20TAXMAN132(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 66 of the repealed Indian I.T. Act, 1922. It relates to the assessment year 1954-55. A question which has been referred to the court for its answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 41,441 was a permissible deduction under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in computing the assessee-company's income for the assessment year 1954-55 ?'2. The facts as stated in the statement of the case submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are these.3. The assessee, Muir Mills Co. Ltd., during the relevant previous year, carried on business of manufacturing and selling textile goods. It was a public limited company. In the assessment year in question, i.e., 1954-55, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 41,411 as litigation expenses incurred in defending a suit filed in the Calcutta High Court. The said suit was a representative action filed by two shareholders of the assess...
Om Industries Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1984
Reported in: [1984]55STC374(All)
R.B. Lal, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the notice of demand dated 15th May, 1981, passed by respondent No. 3 and the appellate order' dated 29th June, 1982, passed by respondent No. 2.2. The relevant facts leading to this writ petition are these. For the licensing year 1980-81, the petitioner obtained a licence for working a khandsari unit consisting of (two power crushers under) the U.P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing Order, 1967 (briefly the Licensing Order). Thereafter, the petitioner gave an option in form XIII as required under the proviso to Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (1-b) of Section 3 of the I). P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (briefly the Act), and Rule 13-A of the Rules framed under the Act. In this option, it mentioned that it had two crushers but it would work only one power crusher of the size 11' x 14' with three rollers. Thereafter during the year 1980-81, the petitioner w...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. J.K. Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(All)189; [1984]150ITR446(All); [1984]19TAXMAN131(All)
1. These are eight connected applications relating to different assessment years under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The Appellate Tribunal refused to state the case on the ground that no question of law arose and, therefore, the Department has now come up in the instant applications and in support of the same, we have heard the learned counsel for the Deparment. In opposition, we have heard the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri R.S. Dhawan. The learned counsel for the Department contended that, in the instant case, a question of law did arise and the Appellate Tribunal was in error in thinking that no question of law arose and also it erred in thinking that even if a question of law arose, the answer was self-evident and, therefore, it was not necessary to make a reference.2. To appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel, certain facts, in brief, may be stated. The respondent-assessee was assessed as an individual during the assessment years 1969-70 to 1976-7...
Pushpendra Singh Vs. Superintendent, District Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ838
R.A. Misra, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner complains against his detention,2. The relevant facts are these :The petitioner Pushpendra Singh is involved in a crime punishable under Section 396/412/120B of I. P. C. He appears to have been arrested on 26th of September, 1982 and remanded to jail custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate continued to remand him to jail custody on subsequent dates to wit, 10th of Oct. and 23rd of Oct., 1982, 5th and 18th of Nov., 1982, 1st and 14th of Dec, 1982 and lastly on 5th of Jan. 1983. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court on 11th of Jan. 1983. The accused was present in custody before the court when the aforesaid committal order was passed. The learned Magistrate directed that subject to any order which may be passed by the Sessions Court, the accused shall remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial and further directed t...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pyarelal Jai Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC252(All)
R.B. Lal, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (briefly the Act) have been filed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow, and are directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Sahranpur Bench, Sahranpur, dated 9th June, 1982. Both these revisions raised common question of law for consideration and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The assessee-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) carried on the business of sale of brassware and utensils inside and outside U. P. It also carried on sale of brass scrap. After 31st May, 1975, brass scrap was not taxable except in the case of sale by a manufacturer. The assessing authority treated the assessee as manufacturer after 31st May, 1975, and therefore held that the sales of scrap after 31st May, 1975, in the assessment year 1975-76 and during the year 1976-77 were liable to tax. The authority determined the taxable turnover for this commodity for the p...
Chief Secretary and ors. Vs. Veerbai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1984
Reported in: 1(1984)ACC225
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, dated 7th July, 1977.2. The facts relevant briefly are that on March 30, 1972 at about 1.30 P.M. the respondent No. 1 was going on foot on the kachcha patri at the Meerut-Delhi Road in Modinagar Bazar. She was proceeding towards her house A truck belonging to the State of U.P. (Irrigation Department) came up with a high speed and swered over her right side whereby multiple injuries were caused to the respondent. The left hand of the respondent was permanently impaired. A claim for damages under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was lodged on October 20, 1972. The delay in filing the claim has been condoned by the Tribunal. The chief Secretary, Government of U.P. was arrayed as a party besides the Secretary (Irrigation) U.P. The Executive Engineer, Tubewell, and the Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Meerut, were also arrayed as the opposite parties. On February 28, 1975 t...
Kumar Exporters P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Lt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas984(All)
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, in the matter of Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Ltd., having its registered office at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The petition has been filed by M/s Kumar Exporters P. Ltd., Ashoka Agarwala and others, who belonged to the same group, for relief under these sections, as, according to them, the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to them.2. This company was incorporated on October 29, 1974. Initially, the promoters of the company were four groups, namely, P. L. Gupta group, D. P. Agarwal group, Basheshar Nath group and Anil Saran group. P. L. Gupta was appointed the managing director of the company for a period of five years. Thereafter, in the year 1978, the board of directors removed him from the said position. It appears, subsequently, disputes took place between the parties and, ultimately, the management of the company went into the ha...
Smt. Janki and ors. Vs. Ganesh Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1984All219
O.P. Saxena, J. 1. This is an appeal and cross-objection against the judgment and decree dated 15th April 1964 passed by the Civil Judge, Ballia decreeing the suit for redemption of mortgage dated 9th September 1947 on payment of Rupees 28,200/-.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff Ganesh Ram used to carry, on business at Ballia in the name of Durga Ram Ganesh Ram. DefendantsI and II set belong to the same family and their business used to be carried on in the name of Devdutt Pandey Kapildeo Pandey. Defendants Illset's business used to be carried on in the name of Lachchu Bhagat Sarju Prasad. The plaintiff used to look after the businesses of defendants I and II set and defendants III set. The plaintiff was the owner of the disputed property situated in the Municipal limits of Ballia. The total area is 46 acres. There is a built portion over a considerable part.3. On 9th September, 1947 plaintiff executed deed Ex. A-1 whereby he transferred the disputed property i...
Raj Engg Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD171(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 9-2-1983 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad.2. The assessee is a registered firm which deals in the purchase and sale of pumping set machinery parts, etc. For the assessment year 1977-78 on a turnover of Rs. 17,64,994, the assessee declared a gross profit of Rs. 1,28,433 at the rate of 7 per cent. An addition of Rs. 35,000 was made by ITO to the trading results, to cover possible leakages. Since the addition was made on agreed basis, no appeal was filed by the assessee. However, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In reply dated 25-2-1982 in response to the ITOs letter dated 16-2-1982, the assessee stated that the proceedings initiated may be dropped. However, the ITO relied upon the following entry dated 22-11-1979 in the order sheet :'An addition of Rs. 35,000 made on agreed basis. Assessed 271(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »