Allahabad Court November 1987 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.
Ved Prakash Narang Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR184(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following two questions for our opinion under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (briefly the Act, 1957):'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under Section 18(1)(a) could be imposed on a legal heir, in view of the specific omission of Sections 18 and 16 from Section 19(3) in Chapter V of the Wealth-tax Act, determining the liability and tax of a deceased person payable by the legal representative ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the absence of mens rea and of the returns having been filed in good faith by the legal representative, penalty was imposable even if it could be imposed ' 2. The facts as stated by the Tribunal, briefly, are that one Keshav Ram Narang died on January 19, 1969. On January 22, 1969, a partition of his property was made between his heirs. The assessee, being one of the heirs, applied...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Subhash Chander Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR166(All); [1987]35TAXMAN495(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax praying that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of the case, on as many as six questions, as stated at the end of the application.2. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the contravention of Rule 46A(1)(d)/3(a) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner admitted certain affidavits in evidence and called upon the Income-tax Officer to furnish his comments in regard to them. The Income-tax Officer did furnish his comments but no application was made by him to produce the deponent for cross-examination. Now, the grievance is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not afford him an opportunity of cross-examining the deponent. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as a finding of fact was recorded that an opportunity was given by the Appellate Assis...
Ram Bahori and ors. Vs. Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ379
ORDERS.K. Mookerji, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed on behalf of Sonia, by her alleged husband Ram Bahori for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus Petition to release the alleged wife Sonia from the unlawful detention by her father Chhotey Lal and another.2. In this writ petition both Ram Bahori and Sonia are arrayed as petitioners and affidavit in support of the petition has been filed by Ram Bahori.3. The relevant allegations in the petition are that Sonia, aged about 22 years, and the petitioner Ram Bahori fell in love with each other and ultimately they decided to get themselves married but the father of the girl Chhotey Lal, respondent No. 2, did not agree to the proposal and wanted to marry his daughter with some other person for which Sonia did not agree. Under the above state of affairs it is averred that Sonia and Ram Bahori went to a temple and accepted each other as wife and husband before God. It will be relevant to point out that this i...
Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal (ii) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ436All
R.S. Pathak, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the Leader Press and at the relevant time published two daily newspapers, the Leader and the Bharat, and also carried on the business of publishing bocks.2. On 3 July 1959 the petitioner submitted a set of draft standing orders framed by it to the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The draft standing orders contained provisions defining the terms and conditions of service of the working Journalists employed by the petitioner. The certifying officer, after considering the objections to the draft standing orders filed by the working journalists, modified some of the provisions and the standing orders so modified were certified by him under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, on 10 January 1962. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority constituted under the aforesaid Act and contended that a number of modifications effected by the certifying officer were not Justified. The appellate authority granted...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jagphool Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR69(All); [1987]35TAXMAN497(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question of law has been referred under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's share in the firms, M/s. Chintamani Brothers and M/s. Kastoor Chand Munna Lal, was exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in M/s. Chintamani Brothers and M/s. Kastoor Chand Munna Lal. Both the firms were engaged in dyeing and printing white cloth and sarees therefrom. In the return filed for the assessment year 1974-75, he claimed exemption in respect of his share in these firms under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. Its claim was not accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. In appeal, it was held that the firms were industrial undertakings within the meaning of the Explanation to the aforesaid section. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the exemption. The order was affirmed by the Tribunal.3. In CWT v. Ra...
Ram Rati Vs. Fakira
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All75
R.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Roorkee at Saharanpur dated 30-10-76 dismissing the suit. 2. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale with the allegations that the defendant had agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of the property in suit in pursuance of the agreement dated 23-6-75 for a consideration of Rs. 25,774/-. A sum of Rs. 6,000/- was paid on the date of the execution of the agreement for sale before the Sub-Registrar and the defendant agreed that on payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 19/774A from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed, he would execute the sale deed and it was further agreed that the last date for the execution of the registered sale deed will be 15-11-75. The plaintiff further alleged that it was further agreed that in case the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the remaining ...
Ramji Lal Sharma Vs. Civil Judge, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All143
ORDERD.S. Sinha, J.1. This case came up before me on 24th Aug., 1987. On that day an application on behalf and under the signatures of Shri R. L. Sharma, praying the case to be listed after 13-9-1987 was moved. According to the statement made in para 1 of the application, the cases of Shri Sharma had been adjourned for the period between 13-8-1987 and 13-9-1987 under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on account of the fact Shri Sharma had been allegedly suffering from 'Chronic and acute diarrhoea'. For the reasons stated in the order dt. 24-8-1987 the said application was rejected and the case was directed to be put upon 26th Aug.,1987.On 26th Aug., 1987, Shri Sharma appeared and prayed for some time to enable him to file rejoinder affidavit. The learned counsel for the opposite parties did not oppose the prayer. Shri R. L. Sharma and the learned counsel for the opposite parties jointly agreed that the case be taken up on 28th Aug., 1987 as a first case peremptorily. The case...
Mangat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All140
Amarendra Nath Verma, J. 1. The petitioners are claiming compensation under Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The assertion is that in respect of the disputed plots the State Government issued notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said notifications it was also declared that in view of the urgency of the matter the provisions of Section 5A are being dispensed with. It was further directed in accordance with Section 17(1) of the Act that because of the urgency the Collector may, on the expiry of fifteen days from the publicationof the notice mentioned in Section 9(1), take possession of the land in dispute needed for the declared public purpose, even though no award had been made. The allegation is that after the aforesaid notices the Collector took possession from the petitioners and indeed some constructions were also started in pursuance thereof. The petitioners were, however, not paid the compensation which was mandatory under Section 17(3-A) ...
Anjani Alankar Mandir Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR67(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee dealing in bullion, silver, silver ornaments, etc., praying that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of case on as many as seven questions proposed in the said application and refer the same for the opinion of this court.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and are of the opinion that no question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. The question for consideration before the Tribunal was as to what was the value of the 23 parcels which were not recorded in the books of the assessee. The assessee received as many as 34 parcels from South India but recorded only 11 parcels in the account books. The weight of each of the parcels recorded in the books was mentioned and the purchase price was also recorded in the books. The weight and the purchase price having been known, the value of the unrecorded parcels was determined. The contenti...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All174
R.R. Misra, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for realisation of Rs. 10,306/- along with interest claimed as damages against the Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents was that consignment consisting of 245 bags of onion was booked on 3rd June 1978 at Sahatwar Railway Station of North Western Railway. The consignment was to be delivered at Silchar to the Arhatia of the plaintiffs.Admittedly plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the consignment and the plaintiff No. 2 is his servant. According to the plaint allegations the consignment ought to have reached Silchar within ten days but factually the same reached on 29th June 1978 in a rotten condition. Consequently assessment delivery was taken. It was found that 233 bags of onion were completely rotten and only 12 bags were partially rotten. It was alleged that the loss had occurred due to the negligence of the servants of the defendant-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »