Allahabad Court August 1986 Judgments
Batham Sugar Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC377(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. Second Appeal No. 296 of 1983 relevant for the assessment year 1975-76 was filed by the dealer before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.2. During the pendency of the aforesaid second appeal a stay application was also moved; but, since there was delay in moving the said application, another application under Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed on 7th September, 1983. The said matter regarding condonation of delay in filing stay application came before the Sales Tax Tribunal and vide . the impugned order dated 17th September, 1983, the Tribunal has held that the fact of mistake of the Advocate, if any, has not been brought on record and therefore the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed the said application and held that the application for stay was time-barred. It is against this order passed on the application for condonation of delay that the present revision has been filed.3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Ram Saran Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR718(All)
1. This is an application for reference filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated November 26, 1985, rejecting the application filed on its behalf for referring the two questions mentioned below to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in adopting different valuation of Hindu undivided family property for estate duty and wealth -tax purposes ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal on the valuation of Hindu undivided family property islegally tenable as it is based on improper appreciation of evidence in the shapeof the wealth-tax order and record ?' 2. In regard to the first question, the Tribunal found that since the valuation of property in question in the matter of estate duty is the same as in the matter of wealth-tax, the question as framed does not arise for decision.3. With regard to the second question, the finding is that:...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Syringe Works Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: [1985]65STC353(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. Consequent upon three second appeals filed for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 and a consolidated order dated 23rd October, 1981, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal partly allowing the appeals, these six Sales Tax Revisions have been filed by the dealer are numbered as Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 201, 202 and 203 of 1981 and the revisions filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax are numbered as Sales Tax Revisions Nos. 62, 63 and 64 of 1982. The yearwise break up of the revisions is that for the assessment year 1973-74, the revision filed by the dealer is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 203 of 1981 while the revision filed by the department is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 64 of 1982. For the assessment year 1974-75 the revision filed by the dealer is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 202 of 1981 while the revision filed by the department is numbered as Sales Tax Revision No. 62 of 1982. Regarding the assessment year 1975-76, the revision filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Yadurish Rai Jhun Jhunwala Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC381(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision arises out of an order dated 15th April, 1983, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The assessee is a dealer in oil-seeds, kalaunji, ramdana, dhania and fertilisers, etc. During the assessment year in question the business was carried on under the sole proprietorship of Sri Yadurish Rai Jhun Jhunwala, the applicant. The dealer had maintained during the said year roker, ledger account, nakal bahai, hath bahi, satti bahi, uchant bahi, stock register, purchase vouchers, invoices and bill books, etc. The Sales Tax Officer had rejected the book version of turnover shown by the assessee and the same was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) as well as the Sales Tax Tribunal. In the impugned order the Sales Tax Tribunal had relied upon two reasons for confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The first is that in survey dated 31st July, 1978, on the spot the stock of six bags of ka...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash Khandsari Udyog
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR710(All)
1. Having heard, counsel for the applicant, we are of the opinion that the following two questions are questions of law arising out of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the tractor was not a road transport vehicle and that investment allowance under Section 32A should be allowed on the actual cost of the tractor to the assessee (2) Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Income-tax Officer that the investment allowance should be allowed to the assessee according to the provisions of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer these two questions to this court for its opinion. Since the assessee has not appeared to oppose this application, there shall be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad and Ram NaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR711(All)
N.D. Ojha, Actg. C.J. 1. In both these applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, a prayer has been made that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be required to refer to this court the following question for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unpaid income-tax liability was not allowable as a debt under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. Having heard, counsel for the applicant and standing counsel for the respondent, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid question is a question of law arising out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court for its opinion. The applicant will be entitled to one set of costs assessed at Rs. 125....
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Traders Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC124(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 14th May, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, U.P., Allahabad Bench I, Allahabad under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the applicant is a partnership firm known as M/s. Mahadeo Traders (hereinafter referred to as the applicant-firm) and is carrying on the business admittedly from 2nd September, 1985. The applicant-firm consists of seven persons and it deals in kerana, etc. The applicant applied for registration under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and it did not file any application for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act. The applicant also declared that the applicant-firm shall be dealing in the goods within U.P. The applicant also filed a return for the month of September on 29th October, 1985 and according to that return no tax liability is created on the applicant-firm.3. The question involved for adjudication in this case is as to whether the dem...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Benchey Lal Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC264(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal on 23rd February, 1982, relating to the assessment year 1976-77. Although in the revision filed in this Court a number of questions have been referred to in paragraph 5 of the revision application, but, Sri V.N. Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has pressed before me only two points which are as follows :(1) Whether under the facts of the case the applicant was liable to tax on stock of foodgrains in hand worth Rs. 14,287.69 as on 2nd September, 1976?(2) Whether the benefit of form 3-Ka in regard to the paddy sales of Rs. 6,967.14 has been correctly disallowed by the Tribunal ?2. The facts with regard to the first point of sales of foodgrains amounting to Rs. 14,287.69 and the controversy arising in connection therewith are as under :The applicant is a dealer in foodgrains. Under a notification dated 1st September, 1976, foodgrain was declared as an essential commodity under ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC440(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. The present revision arises out of an order dated 26th May, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal by virtue of which the appeal of the present applicant was dismissed.2. The applicant, in facts, deals with the manufacture and sale of sugar and molasses, etc. The present revision relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessing authority accepted the account of the applicant. However, he assessed the tax upon the applicant's sales of molasses for Rs. 13,434.60 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The applicant feeling aggrieved, as against the said order, preferred an appeal before the learned Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, and the same was also dismissed. Similarly the Sales Tax Tribunal also dismissed the appeal, hence the present revision. In fact, before the Tribunal, the only one point pressed was regarding non-grant of exemption on the af...
Tag this Judgment!N.F. Chand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ637
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1. Major N. F. Chand is petitioner before this Court and opposite party No. 2 is Retired Lt. General Jagdishwar Singh Nakal. The petitioner is a person subject to (The) Army Act, 1950. There is no dispute about it. In Section 3(b)(ii) 'Civil offence' has been defined as an offence which is triable by a Criminal Court. As between these two parties mentioned above, criminal proceedings giving rise to the allegations making out a case covered by Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 380 etc. of the I.P.C. have been started. After investigation charge-sheet has been submaiiidtool against the present applicant Major N. F. Chand. It appears that the learned Magistrate before whom the case came up was conscious of the fact that in cases of this type it is the option of the Army Authorities to decide whether they have to try the case by a court martial, or whether theyhave to permit it to be tried by the regular Criminal Courts. The learned Magistrate, therefore, entered into corres...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »