Allahabad Court March 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.
Jagdish Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All12
V.P. Mathur, J. 1. This is the first appeal purporting to be under Section 96 of the Civil P.C. directed against the judgment and decree passed on 24-5-1976 by Mr. M. C. Jain, the then Civil Judge, Farrukhabad. The learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, namely, Ram Lal, Jauhari Lal, Mithu Lal and Madan Singh for specific performance of a contract to sell, against Smt. Phoolmati and her vendees who are now the appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that a deed in the nature of agreement to sell was executed on 11-2-1974 by Smt. Phoolmati in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 5,6 and 7. It was in respect of agricultural plots detailed at the foot of the plaint and the agreement was that after the conclusion of the partition proceedings and after obtaining the Sirdari rights in respect thereto, the deed of sale shall be executed. Consideration was agreed to be Rs. 22,000/-. On 11-2-1974, an earnest of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the defe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hanuman Prasad Dwarka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR116(All); [1987]32TAXMAN448(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), has been made at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that where there is a change in the constitution of a firm, two assessments have to be made, one in respect of the income derived by the firm before reconstitution and another in respect of the income derived by the firm after its reconstitution ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm and the reference relates to the assessment year 1978-79. One of the partners of the firm, Ramji Lal, expired on October 23, 1977. Consequently, on his death, the remaining two partners, Hanuman Prasad and Dwarka Prasad, continued the business of the firm with effect from. October 30, 1977. It was claimed before the Income-tax Officer on the death of Ramji Lal that the firm was dissolved and t...
Cawnpore Chemical Works Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC224; 1988(35)ELT454(All)
ORDERA.N. Verma, J.1. The petitioner prays for a writ mandamus directing the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-2, Kanpur to refund a sum of Rs. 3,09,819.72 deposited by the petitioner as excise duty. The petitioner contends that in view of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dated 20.3.1985 whereby the order passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the petitioner's application for refund was set aside and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for a fresh determination of the assessable value in the light of the observations made in the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) it has become entitled to the refund immediately.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no merit in this connection. The Collector (Appeals) has while disposing of the petitioner's appeal directed the Assistant Collector to redetermine the assessable value. The assessable value of the petitioner, has, therefore, yet to be redetermine in terms of Section 4(4...
Hind Cement Products Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC26; 1987(13)LC439(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT636(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. The only question for consideration in this writ petition filed by M/s. Hind Cement Products Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner unit, which is owned by the Hind Ceramics Limited hereinafter to be referred to as the company) is whether the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty to the extent of Rs. 65817.63 by the order dated 30th August 1983, =[1983 ELT 1860 (Cegat)] (Annexure 28 to the petition).2. The petitioner unit is engaged in the business of manufacture of absestos cement pipes and the company carries on the business of manufacture of P.C.C. poles (Prestress Cement Concrete poles). The case of the petitioner unit is that it continued to pay the excise duty until the enforcement of the Notification No. 71/78, dated 1st March 1978. (Annexure 2 to the petition). In para 7 of the petition, it is averred that the petitioner unit was exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty w.e.f. 1.4.1978 in terms of noti...
Pradeshiya Industrial and Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD306(All.)
1. Both the assessee and revenue have brought these appeals before us.The facts and the background were identical and the points involved also are interlinked. Accordingly, the learned counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set. We, therefore, consolidate all these appeals for disposal by this common order.2. We shall take up the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82, being ITA No. 169(Alld)/1985, in which the grounds of appeal are that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] erred in confirming the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer ['ITO' for short] on the basis of the accounts, which were not approved by the Board of Directors of the assessee nor they were adopted by the Members at Annual General Meeting and that the revised return should have constituted the foundation for assessment. It is also the appeal by the assessee that the CIT (A) erred in confirming the assessment made on the basis of the original return disregarding the rev...
Atma Ram Misra Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: [1990]77STC232(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision by the assesses for the assessment year 1981-82, against the Tribunal's order dated 15th July, 1986, granting waiver, only to the extent of 10 per cent of the assessed tax within the meaning of the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 9(l-B) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act, 1948').2. The assessee is a wholesale grain dealer and a commission agent. The assessee denied having made inter-State sales of foodgrains. The contention before the assessing officer was that the foodgrain was purchased from the farmers for ex-U.P. principals and that no inter-State sale of foodgrains was made by the assessee. Such contention was rejected and the assessing officer held that the assessee had made inter-State sales in foodgrain. This is how the assessment was made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the inter-State sales in foodgrain. It is averred by the assessee that for the first time, the purchase of foodgrain made for ex-U.P. principals, ...
Kashi Ram Munish Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC358(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision for the assessment year 1980-81 by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 21st February, 1986.2. The dispute relates to the purchases which the assessee claimed to have made for ex-U. P. principals as an agent. The assessing officer recorded the findings that the purchases made by the assessee were debited in the name of ex-U. P. principals right on the date when the purchases were made, that the goods so purchased were dispatched to the ex-U. P. principals either on the same day or in some cases even beyond a week and that the assessee has not shown any written orders on behalf of the ex-U. P. principals. The Tribunal remanded the case only for these three reasons on which the assessing officer has already recorded findings. The assessing officer having already recorded his findings, I do not see that the Tribunal was justified in directing that 'the matter of purchasing agency will be re-examined by the assessing authority.'3. The remand o...
United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sukhlal Singh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC231
V.P. Mathur, J.1. These two appeals arise out of and are directed against the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated 30-8-1978 in Claim Case No. 28 of 1974.2. One Sangram Singh who was working as a City Bus driver with the U.P. Road Transport Corporation was driving Bus No. UPI 5234 on 12-10-73. While he was going on Kanpur-Bilhaur Road and had reached near the village Lalpur at about 5-15 a.m. a tanker bearing No. UPG 6555 owned by Smt. Saraswati Devi driven by Sitaram, which was insured by United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, suddenly came on the same road from the opposite direction at a very rash speed and because of the negligence of the driver of the tanker, Sitaram, and inspite of efforts made by the driver of the bus, Sangram Singh, the tanker dashed against the bus. As a result, Sangram Singh received serious injuries and was taken to H. M. Hospital, Kanpur immediately after the occurrence. It was ...
Smt. Sushma Vs. Vikramaditya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All44
ORDERR.R. Misra, J.1. The applicant in the present case is the married wife of Sri Vikramaditya, opposite party in the present transfer application. She filed an original Suit No. 577 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge at Allahabad praying for a relief of perpetual injunction that the defendant husband may be restrained from marrying one Km. Asha of Gorakhpur or any other woman till the subsistence of wedlock of the plaintiff with the aforesaid defendant. It is alleged in the transfer application that after the marriage, the applicant accompanied her husband to Bahraich and discharged her marital obligations there. It is, further alleged that in the month of April, 1985, the husband of the applicant underwent a surgical operation at Lucknow. From Lucknow the applicant went to attend funeral of her maternal grandmother at Faizabad she had gone there along with her father-in-law. Thereafter the father-in-law came back and she came back along with her parents to Allahabad. The opposite p...
Abdul Sattar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(All)328; [1988]173ITR516(All); [1987]34TAXMAN18(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Shri Abdul Sattar. The petitioner's premises were searched on July 23, 1986, under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). During the search, only books of account and documents were seized but no cash, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles were seized. The authorised officer, on the date of search, also passed three separate orders under Section 132(3). These orders were addressed to the managers of three different banks where some persons named in those orders, being the family members of the petitioner, held certain accounts in their names. By these orders, the Income-tax Officer ordered the banks not to allow operation of these accounts till further orders from him. Besides the seizure of books of account and documents, a key of a bank locker found in the premises searched was also seized.2. Initially, the writ petition was filed seeking mandamus from this court that the respondents be restrained from takin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »