Allahabad Court July 1986 Judgments
Ganga Prasad and Makhan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC238(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated February 27, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-I, relating to assessment year 1976-77.2. The assessee was carrying on business in foodgrains. In the assessment year in question its books of account were accepted but the amounts of taulia, mandi shulk and palley dari, at the rate of one and a half per cent, one per cent and 15 naye paise per bag respectively, were added into the disclosed taxable turnover. It appears, that two forms 3-Ka covering the amount of Rs. 11,024.64 were rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and the exemption was disallowed on the ground that they were not filed on the first date of hearing, i.e., September 12, 1979. Subsequently in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1980 ATJ 385 the assessee moved an application under Section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC227(All)
H.N. Seth, C.J.1. As the point of controversy involved in these four revisions under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, is the same, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 103, 104 and 105 of 1982 pertain to assessment of M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hazratganj, Lucknow, under the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. Sales Tax Revision No. 113 of 1982 is in respect of assessment proceedings of M/s. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow, under the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1975-76.2. In the course of their business the applicants, insurance companies, insure motor vehicles against loss or damage caused due to accident. In the event of complete or partial loss due to accident the applicants are required to compensate the insured. The insurance companies thereafter take possession of the vehicles and dispose it of as scrap by holding auction....
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn and Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC422(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated January 27, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi Bench-I, Varanasi, relating to assessment year 1977-78, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The question raised by Mr. Saran Behari Lal Srivastava before me on behalf of the assessee in the present revision is :Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the books of account on the lone ground that the Surveying Officer was not able to account the cash in till at the time of survey dated 16th July, 1977 ?2. Mr. Saran Behari Lal submitted that the only ground on which the books of account of the assessee have been rejected is that the Surveying Officer was not able to count the cash in till at the time of survey dated 16th July, 1977, and on that ground alone the books of account of the assessee could not be rejected. Mr. Lal has not cited any authority which specifically says tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Jute Mill Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(All)53; [1987]163ITR816(All); [1986]29TAXMAN184(All)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The Income-lax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred to this court for its opinion the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penally imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after April 1, 1971 (1976?), i.e., on February 9, 1977 ?'2. The relevant assessment year in regard to the penalty proceedings was 1972-73. The facts giving rise to the penalty proceedings, in a nutshell, are that the assessce had claimed development rebate and depreciation on machinery which was alleged to be installed by the assessee, but the Income-tax Officer had rejected the claim of the assessee and consequently penalty proceedings were initiated. The order of imposition of penalty was passed on February 9, 1977. The Tribunal in referring the aforesaid question to this court has placedreliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Om Sons : [1979]116I...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manju Rani Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(All)120; [1987]163ITR818(All); [1986]29TAXMAN148(All)
1. The applicant assessee has been assessed as an individual in the year 1977-78. A question arose as to whether the amount of interest credited to the account of her minor sons in the firms, Chandra Mukhi Onkar Nath and Lala Kashi Nath Seth, ought to be included in the income of the applicant under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The point was decided against the assessee. On her application, however, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the amounts of interest credited to the accounts of the minor sons of the assessee in the firms, namely, Chandra Mukhi Onkar Nath and Lala Kashi Nath Seth, were rightly included in the income of the assessee under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This is Income-tax Reference No. 350 of 1982.3. Since the applicant had not shown the amount of interest credited to the accounts of her minor sons in her return, proceedings for impositi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Swadeshi Metal Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC64(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These four revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order dated 31st August, 1985 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal,Ghaziabad Bench-II, relating to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 all under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act).2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of these cases are that the respondent assessee is a dealer of iron and steel having its head office at Mandi Shiam Nagar, Bulandshahar and branch office at Delhi. For the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 no inter-State sales were admitted by the respondent-assessee but for the assessment year 1981-82 it disclosed its inter-State sales at Rs. 19,930.50. A survey of the business premises of the assessee was conducted on 31st March, 1982, when some account books and certain other papers were seized. From ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalman Industries Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC342(All)
H.N. Seth, C.J.1. These two revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, by the dealer, M/s. Lalman Industries, Sitapur are directed against the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Lucknow dated 20th March, 1980, dismissing Revision Applications Nos. 699 of 1977 and 700 of 1977.2. The applicant dealt in manufacture and sale of groundnut oil. In due course it filed returns for the years 1972-73 (U.P.) and 1973-74 (Central). In those returns it disclosed its net purchase of oil-seed at Rs. 3,81,904.61. Sale of self manufactured oil in the course of inter-State sale was disclosed at Rs. 18,944 on which tax liability was admitted at 1 per cent only. Inter-State sale of oil was disclosed at Rs. 3,24,410.45 claiming exemption on sale worth Rs. 74,961.95 on the ground that it was made to vegetable oil manufactured against Kha forms, net turnover was disclosed at Rs. 2,49,448.50. However, at the time of assessment the assessee neither produced any Kha form nor any...
Tag this Judgment!Sodhan Singh Vs. Suraj NaraIn Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC176; II(1987)ACC472
A.P. Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 1978 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur. It was ordered by means of the impugned order that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 49,600/- to the widow Smt. Meera Devi and a minor daughter named Sandhya along with pendente lite and future interest at 6 per cent per annum. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that admittedly appellant is the owner of the registered Vehicle No. UPE 1238. The accident in the present case took place on the 28th October, 1974, as a result of which admittedly one Om Prakash died. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is to the effect that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. After considering various facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the widow of the deceased and his minor daughter were entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,600/-. The con...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Nandan Srivastava and ors. Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corpo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC241
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The appellants are the father and mother of one Rajiv Nandan Srivastava. According to the appellants on 6th August, 1981, at about 4.15 PM bus No. UPF 7062 of the respondent U.P. State Road Transport Corporation dashed against Rajiv Nandan Srivastava at Dohariaghat in the district of Azamgarh causing injuries to him to which he ultimately succumbed on the next day. A claim was made by the appellants for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Azamgarh. It was contested by the respondent inter alia on the ground that no accident took place by the respondent's bus as alleged by the appellants and that at all events the bus was not being driven either rashly or negligently at the time of the alleged accident and consequently the appellants were not entitled to any compensation. The amount of compensation claimed was also challenged. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties the Tribunal recorded findin...
Tag this Judgment!Collector Central Excise, North U.P. Collectorate Vs. Pyrites Phosphat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC280
ORDER1. Having heard counsel for the applicant we are of opinion that the question of law mentioned in this application in regard to which a prayer has been made that the Tribunal should be required to refer the same to this Court for its opinion, does not deserve to be required to be so referred. As is apparent from the appellate order of the Tribunal Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules under which the show cause notice was issued was repealed with effect from 6th August, 1977 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 14th September, 1977, i.e., alter the repeal of Rule 10-A. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that on the facts of the instant case it was apparent that the Appellate Collector had impliedly conceded the contention of the opposite party that action could not be taken under Rule 9(2) of the aforesaid Rules. In Rayla Corporation v. Director of Enforcement AIR 1970 SC 494 a complaint was made for an offence under Rule 132-A(4) of the Defence of India Rules afte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »