Allahabad Court March 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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Veekey Footwear and Leather Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC338(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raise a common question of law and as such are being decided together.2. M/s. Veekey Footwear and Leather Industries Private Ltd., the opposite party in each of these two revisions, carry on business in purchase and sale of shoes. The opposite party had entered into an agreement with the State Trading Corporation for supply of shoes. The shoes purchased by the State Trading Corporation from the opposite party were meant to be exported to Russia. In the year 1977-78 the opposite party purchased shoes worth Rs. 19,43,904.80 and submitted a declaration in form III-A. In the year 1978-79 it appears shoes worth Rs. 8,51,040.00 (were purchased) and in regard to this purchase also a declaration in form III-A was submitted by it. The question which arose for determination before the authorities below and arises for consideration in the present revisions is whether the opposit...
Majid Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ272
ORDERM. Wahajuddin, J.1. The applicant has come forward with a prayer that the present proceedings before the Magistrate in Case No. 25 of 1981 may be quashed. As the prayer is not very clear, I may at the very outset lay down the facts as well The Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr.P.C, recording its satisfaction of apprehension of breach of peace centering round the dispute of possession over immoveable property. Written statements were invited from the parties and the parties filed written statements. After an order passed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C, the next stage of the proceeding is covered under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C and the Magistrate is bound to conclude the proceedings and declare possession of any of the parties on the authority of the case of Bhutani v. Mani 1969 All WR (HC) 59 : 1969 Cri LJ 13 (SC). It would, however, appear that there is also a provision in the Cr.P.C contained in Sub-section (5) and in view of the same if the apprehension of ...
Kothari Carpets Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD357(All.)
1. The only contention that was pressed and argued in this case relates to the disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on a sum of Rs. 3,68,312 paid by the assessee as commission.2. The assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of hand-knotted carpets.With a view to maintain and increase its exports in Europe, it had entered into an agency agreement with Ingeborg Unadcath of Hamburg. It will be necessary to quote the relevant provisions of this agreement as under: 1. The first party 'KC are the manufacturers of Indian hand-knotted carpets who have agreed to appoint the second party as 'agents', Export Promotion Sole Selling Agents in whole of Europe including the United Kingdom for a period of five years. 2. The 'agents' will secure orders for export of hand-knotted carpets from first class customers. 3. 'KC will manufacture and export the orders submitted and confirmed. 4. It has been decided that a commission of 5 per cent will be p...
Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal and anr. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(All)110; [1985]153ITR382(All); [1984]19TAXMAN107(All)
Mehrotra, J.1. We have heard Dr. Misra in support of this petition. The brief facts are these : petitioner No. 1 claims to be a registered partnership firm and it is stated that for the assessment year 1975-76, registration was granted by the income-tax Department under Section 185 of the I.T. Act. A true copy of the said order dated September 25, 1982, is annex. 1 to the writ petition. The Income-tax Department issued a notice dated February 21, 1984, under Section 186(1) of the said Act. By the said notice, the Department expressed its opinion that during the said assessment year and during the subsequent assessment years which followed, viz., the years1976-77 and 1977-78, there was no genuine firm in existence and the registration to the firm was erroneously granted for the assessment year 1975-76, and so the petitioner No. 1, the assessee, was called upon to show cause why the said order dated September 25, 1982, granting registration to the assessee-firm be not cancelled under the...
Gulu G. Thadani (Huf) Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessmen ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD637(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - The assessee is aggrieved of the order dated 16-10-1981 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. The assessee is a HUF. It derives income from house property, share income from Mayfair Theatre and other sources. The only point urged before us in this appeal related to the assessment of income from rent received from the Vijaya Bank Ltd. who is the tenant of the assessee in the shop in Thadani Mansion adjacent to Mayfair Theatre building. In that connection, the facts are that those premises were earlier in the tenancy of the Allied Electric and Radio Corpn. Lucknow, since 1973 (Allied). An arrangement was arrived at between Allied, the Vijaya Bank Ltd. and the assessee whereby it was agree that Allied would vacate the portion occupied by them in favour of the Vijaya Bank Ltd. Vijaya Bank Ltd. paid a sum of Rs. 75,000 to Allied who vacated the shop. The Vijaya Bank Ltd. got this portion allotted to itself with the consent of the assessee. T...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Agra Belting Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC118(All)
V.N. Khare, J. 1. By means of this revision the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow, has challenged the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, U. P., Bench Allahabad, Allahabad. The dealer who is a manufacturer of cotton fabric known as patta used in oil mills, dal mills and rice mills moved an application under Section 25 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for deciding following questions:(1) Whether or not the product of the assessee is covered within the term 'cotton fabrics'?(2) Whether or not the assessee is entitled to get exemption under Notification No. 4064/X-960(4)/58 dated 25th November, 1958 ?(3) Whether or not the assessee is entitled to get the exemption of inter-State sales under Notification No. ST-4486/X dated 14th December, 1957 2. So far as questions Nos. (2) and (3) were concerned the Commissioner, Sales Tax, held that the patta manufactured by the assessee was covered by the notification dated 1st December, 1973 'beltings of all kinds' and could not be regarded as '...
Kanhaiya Lal Prahladrai Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1075(NULL)
ORDERPer Shri Prakash Narain, Accountant Member - The original assessment in this case was made under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 24-10-1976 on an income of Rs. 81,860. It was subsequently revised to Rs. 83,940 under section 155 of the Act on 16-2-1977. The assessee was a partner in the firm of Prahlad Rai Steel Forging Works in the capacity of the karta of his HUF. His wife, Smt. Sumitra Devi, was also a partner in this firm. A sum of Rs. 16,520 came to her share from the above firm. This amount was neither shown by the assessee in his return in the status of an individual, nor was it included in the original assessment.2. In the meantime, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Madho Prasad v. CIT : [1978]112ITR492(All) held that under section 64(1)(ii) of the Act, the share of a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership could be assessed in the hands of his father if the latter was also a partner in that firm irrespective of the fact whether he was pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›