Allahabad Court November 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.
In Re: Kanhiya Lal Om Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(All)302; [1986]158ITR170(All); [1986]25TAXMAN149(All)
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in commission agency of khandsari, jaggery and sugar. A search was made by the income-tax authorities in the business premises of the petitioner on October 6, 1982, and some books of account and documents pertaining to the assessment year 1981-82 were seized. This writ petition was filed on January 16, 1984, challenging the retention of the account books and the documents beyond 180 days as contemplated by Section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The case of the petitioner as taken in the writ petition is that the account books were being retained beyond the maximum period of 180 days without complying with the requirements of Sub-section (8) of Section 132 of the Act. On January 16, 1984, the standing counsel of the Income-tax Department was granted time to file a counter-affidavit and on an application for stay made along with the writ: petition, an order was passed s...
Smt. Sushila Devi and anr. Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985All78
ORDERN.N. Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri R. K. Rastogi, IV Addl. District Judge, Jhansi dated 7-1-1984 who decreed plaintiffs' suit while functioning as Judge Small Cause Court.2. It was a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.3. It was averred that defendant was tenant of the shop in dispute belonging to plaintiff No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Tenancy used to commence from the first date of every month of English calendar and used to expire on the last date of the month.4. Rent remained unpaid from 1-5-1980 up to 30-10-1980 despite notice dated 5-11-1980 served on defendant on 12-1 1-1980. It was also a notice to vacate the premises and determine the tenancy. Defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises; Hence the suit.5. Pending the proceedings plaintiff No. 1 sold the disputed shop to her son, plaintiff No. 2.6. Defendant contested the suit on the ground that agreement ...
Dyer MeakIn Breweries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Smt. Bimla Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC147; AIR1985All147
O.P. Saxena, J. 1. These are twoconnected appeals under Section 110D of the MotorVehicles Act against the award dated 17thOctober 1977 made by the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District JudgeCourt No. 1) Kanpur allowing the petition forrecovery of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation withinterest at 6% from the date of the petitiononwards till recovery. The liability of oppositeparty No. 1-Respondent No. 4 was fixed atRs. 37,500/-. The liability of Opposite PartiesNos. 2 and 3 appellants was also fixed at asimilar amount. 2. One Ram Shanker Gupta met with anaccident on 12th Jan. 1971, at about 8 A. M. atthe Farrukhabad Kanpur Road, the accidenttook place near river Esan at Bilhaur, P. S.Bilhaur, District Kanpur. Ram Shanker Guptawas travelling in a Roadways Bus No. UPI 281on his way from Tirwa in District Farrukhabadto Kanpur, A truck was going ahead of theBus. D. W. 2 Ram Pal Singh was the driver ofthe Bus. The driver of the Bus gave a horn forovertaking the truck which was going...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagdish Lal and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(All)92; [1986]157ITR620(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. Raising the following identical question, the Revenue has made these applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961 '), relating to the consecutive assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in excluding the share income from M/s. Jyoti Finance Corporation, Shamli, in view of the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut, for the assessment year 1974-75 '2. The facts, briefly, are that in respect of certain assets of the assessee-Hindu undivided family, there was a partial partition on July 1, 1972, relevant to the assessment year 1974-75. The assessee-Hindu undivided family represented by its karta was a partner in a firm, namely, M/s. Jyoti Finance Corporation, Shamli, prior to the date of partial partition. In the partial partition, the share income from the aforesaid firm constituting an asset was divided among the ka...
Malti Prasad Ram Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(All)87; [1986]157ITR601(All); [1985]22TAXMAN162(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee, a firm, engaged in the business of pawning and sale of ornaments during the assessment year 1977-78, for which previous year ended on Diwali, 1976, for asking the Tribunal to referthe following questions:' 19(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order sustaining the addition of Rs. 54,100 in the hands of the assessee-firm is wrong and perverse based on irrelevant material and without consideration of relevant and material evidence ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order sustaining the addition of Rs. 82,400 in the hands of the assessee-firm is wrong and perverse based on irrelevant material and inadmissible evidence and without consideration of relevant and material evidence ? (c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the additions of Rs. 54,100 and Rs. 82,400 made by the Depa...
S. Chand and Co. Vs. Ii Addl. District Judge, Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1986All26
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is the tenant of opposite parties 3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as landlords) in respect of premises No. 1779 (first floor) Gwynne Road, Lucknow. It appears that a notice dated 8-9-1980 was sent by the landlords to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent from him. The tenancy of the petitioner was also terminated by the said notice which was served upon the petitioner on 10-9-1980. It appears that in compliance of the demand made in the said notice, the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 2808/- being the rent for the period from 1-4-1980 to 30-9-1980 on 25-9-1980 which was refused. This was followed by rent for the month of October, 1980 which was sent by Money Order on 7-10-1980 but it was also refused. On the expiry of the period of notice, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the landlords in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow on 14-10-1980 which was registe...
Dr. J.N. Srivastava Vs. Lucknow University and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1986All137
K.N. Goyal, J. 1. In this writ petition the appointment of opposite party No. 4 to the post of the Joint Director, Population Research Centre in the Department of Economics, Lucknow University has been challenged. We have heard Sri L. P. Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. 2. Three points have been urged in support of the petition, which we will deal with seriatim. 3. The first is that the recommendation of the Selection Committee choosing opposite party No. 4 as ranking above the petitioner in order of preference was contradictory to the unanimous recommendation recorded immediately thereafter to the effect that both should be appointed simultaneously. Actually only one post had been advertised and the said resolution, which was recorded after the order of preference was indicated, was not strictly within the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee and may at best be considered only as a suggestion or recommendation. Moreover, even where two appointments are made...
income-tax Officer Vs. Lallooji and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)12ITD371(All.)
1. Since the above appeals relate to the same assessee and also involve some common contentions, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a firm. Clause 2 of its partnership deed, dated 18-7-1965, reads as under : 2. That the parties to this deed agreed to carry on the business of tent merchants and suppliers of tents, furniture, tin hutment, contractors, and similar other businesses for the common benefit of all the parties to this deed. The firm may do such other work or business or businesses, which the partners may decide to do from time to time.While claiming investment allowance, the assessee had also stated the nature of its business in its letter received by the ITO on 3-10-1979 as under : That we have purchased GC sheets and other materials during the previous year as per lists enclosed. We used these materials for our business. Our business is of construction of movable partitions, fences, removable fittings and installat...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Krishan Kumar Modi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(All)306
1. JUDGMENT : Om Prakash, J. - This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) for the asst. yr. 1973-74 by the petitioner praying that the Tribunal be directed to refer the following question to this Court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of remuneration at the rate of 1% of the net foregone even before the right to receive profit of Modipon Ltd. did not accrue to the assessee as the amount of remuneration accrued ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the addition of Rs. 36,305 made by the ITO on account of value of perquisite for the use of accommodation, furniture and air-conditioner and electricity and water cannot be sustained and in relying on the certificate of the Finance Secretary, Modi Industries, that till 31-3-1973, the assessee was not allotted any accommodation by the company by ignoring the m...