Allahabad Court February 1987 Judgments
Smt. Mewati Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All216
A.N. Varma, J. 1. This case comes before us upon a reference by a Division Bench which felt that certain Division Bench decisions of this Court on the point set out below required consideration by a larger Bench. The point which has let to this reference is whether under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (briefly 'the Act') the consolidation authorities are required to dispose of the entire proceedings relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings under Section 9-A before undertaking the preparation and publication of the provisional consolidation Scheme under Sections 19-A and 20 of the Act. On this point there is a conflict of opinion as reflected by two learned single Judge decisions on the one hand and two Division Bench decisions on the other. 2. In the case of Chandrapal Singh v. Bhola Singh, 1972 Rev Dec 350 a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that proceedings under Section 20 of the Act could be started only after all the objections have been dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Willard India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC255(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. These are two revisions by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 24th March, 1986.2. Against the assessment orders, the assessee, a public limited company, filed two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). Though the appeals were presented well within time but no proof of payment of admitted tax was filed with the appeals. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) refused to entertain the appeals as no proof of payment of admitted tax was filed with the appeals. Then the assessee carried the dispute in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. It also dismissed the appeals on the ground that the provisions of Section 9(1-B) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, that no appeal shall be entertained without the proof of payment of admitted tax, are mandatory.3. Before the Tribunal, the assessee made an application (annexure 3) for condonation of delay for the first time that the admitted tax could not be deposited due to financial exigencies. The grievance of the as...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Industries Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC374(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1976-77 against the Tribunal's order dated 9th January, 1986,2. The assessee is a dealer in scrap. The assessee stated that the entire purchases of scrap were made from the local 'kabaris'. The vouchers prepared by the assessee himself were shown. The assessing officer failed to locate the persons from whom scrap was purchased by the assessee under the self-prepared vouchers. The assessee was then called upon by the assessing officer to produce some of the sellers himself, but the assessee also failed to produce any seller before the assessing officer. The latter, therefore, drew an inference that the scrap was purchased from outside U. P. and, thus, he brought the purchases to tax.3. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) also affirmed the rejection of the books. On further appeal, the Tribunal concurred with the appellate authority.4. I have heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned Standing Counsel. The contention o...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. G.E. Hawn
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD553(All.)
1. Common questions are involved in these appeals and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee in each case was assessed in the status of nonresident.Each assessee is a foreign national and had come to India in connection with the setting up of a fertilizer complex by Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., Phulpur in the District of Allahabad ('IFFCO'), for the sake of brevity. The assessees were employed by IFFCO and a formal contract of service was executed between each assessee and the employer. According to those contracts each assessee was entitled to get the agreed salary in U.S. Dollars per month.Besides salary he was entitled to have certain other benefits mentioned in the agreement of service. The contract of service also provides that the assessee would get living allowance, which in the case of Mr. C.R.Rumpeltin was Rs. 115 per calendar day. S/Shri K.B. Macoudden, R.L.Waldern and G.E. Hawn were to get living allowanc...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Chandra Sharma Vs. Smt. Rajesh Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All150
V.P. Mathur, J.1. This first appeal from order, passed by Mr. R.S. Tripathi, the then Vth Additional District Judge, on 19-1-84, in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1983, is directed against an order granting permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to the respondent.2. Briefly stated, the proceedings for a decree of divorce were going on in the court below between the parties at the instance of the husband Vinod Chandra Sharma. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition for divorce on 19-1-84 and by the present impugned order of the same date he passed the order granting Rs. 350/- per month as permanent alimony in favour of the wife and against the husband. It is contended that this order is patently illegal and cannot be allowed to stand.3. I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. Permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act can only be granted if divorce is granted but not during the subsistence of the marri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Chandra Prakash Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(All)211; [1987]166ITR643(All); [1987]32TAXMAN35(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the firm in which the assessee was a partner was an industrial undertaking within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and was entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The respondent assessee is an individual and the valuation date for each assessment was the last date of the relevant calendar year. The assessee is a partner in a registered firm, M/s. Indian Cold Storage and Industries Co., Meerut, which carries on the business of running cold storage and also manufactured ice. In respect of his interest in the aforesaid firm amounting to Rs. 87,686 for the assessment year 1973-74 and the valuation of his interest in the said firm for the subsequent year 1974-75 ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishan Subhash Chand Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC251(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 against the Tribunal's order dated 14th August, 1986.2. The facts are that against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), both the parties filed appeals. Whereas, the appeal of the Revenue, being Appeal No. 2129 of 1979, was dismissed by the Tribunal on 27th October, 1983, the assessee's appeal, being Appeal No. 1113 of 1979, was dismissed on 14th August, 1986 by the impugned order. The assessee carried on the business of brick kiln. The books of account were rejected and the turnover shown by the assessee, was estimated by the assessing officer. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the rejection of the books and the estimate of the turnover. The Revenue filed appeal challenging the quantum only.3. The contention of the assessee is that the Tribunal erred in deciding the cross appeals against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) at different stages and that the best...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram Ratan Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC352(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1981-82, by the assessee carrying on business of brick kiln against the Tribunal's order dated 3rd May, 1985.2. The books of account of the assessee were rejected on the ground that surveys were conducted on several dates but except the challan and cash memos no other books were shown at the time of survey. From the fact that the books were not produced at the time of survey without any cogent explanation, inference was drawn by the Tribunal that the assessee did not maintain the books day-to-day or in ordinary course of business, and therefore, the turnover of the assessee was estimated. I agree with the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the books were not maintained by the assessee day-to-day or in ordinary course of business. Ordinarily, when the activities of manufacturing, rilling, extracting the bricks, etc., were going on at the time of the surveys, the assessee should have kept the entire record relating to manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Anuplal Sohan Lal Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC254(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1978-79 against the Tribunal's order dated 20th May, 1986, affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), remanding the case to the assessing officer to re-do the reassessment.2. The assessee carried on business of brick-kiln during the year. The case of the assessee was that the kiln remained under operation up to 19th June, 1978. The assessing officer made best judgment assessment. Later the assessing officer reopened the assessment under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and estimated the turnover at a much higher figure. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who remanded the case to the assessing officer. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial).3. The only question for consideration, is whether the assessing officer validly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 21 for making the reassessment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Jangi Lal Vs. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1803
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. Proceeding was initiated at the instance of the applicant (Jangi Lal) in respect of plot No. 133 (0.57 acres) situated in village Molangpur, police Station Sarai Khwaja, district jaunpur, under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. Preliminary order was drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Jaunpur dated March 24, 1978. On application of Jangi Lai, the standing crop of wheat on the said plot was attached and handed over in the custody of Babu Nandan as Superdar on April 4,1978, through the medium of the Station Officer with a direction to harvest the crop and produce the sale proceeds in the court when asked for. During the pendency of the proceedings, Jangi Lai obtained from the custody of the Superdar the wheat crop and hay on Nov. 9 1979, though there was no order of the Magistrate to this effect. Upon this being brought to the notice of the Magistrate, he estimated the value of the property at Rs. 905/-only after hearing the parties on 27th March, 1980...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »