Allahabad Court April 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.
Milind Saran Kothiwal Vs. Vinai Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All339
ORDERB.N. Sapru, J. 1. Milind Saran Kothiwal was a minor when the suit was -instituted against him and others.2. One Sri Ibne Haider Naqvi, Advocate, was his guardian-ad-litem and he filed a written statement. Milind Saran Kothiwal became a major during the pendency of the suit and made an application before the Court praying that the written statement by him should be cancelled and he should be permitted to file a fresh written statement. This application was rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court held that it will be open to the applicant to apply for amendment of the written statement already filed on his behalf in accordance with the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and he could not have the written statement already filed cancelled.2A. It is against this order of the trial Court that this revision has been filed.3. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant, who has now become a major, is entitled, as a matter of law, t...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ram Saran Kajriwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(All)32; [1987]168ITR485(All); [1987]32TAXMAN356(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This reference has been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the reversionary value of land cannot be included in the valuation of properties made on rent capitalisation method ?'2. The facts are that Ram Saran Kajriwal is an individual subject to wealth-tax. He owns among other assets 1/6th share in each of the three properties known as :(1) 24/73, Birhana Road, Kanpur. (2) 73/27, Collectorganj, Kanpur. (3) 53/2, Nayaganj, Kanpur. 3. The last mentioned two properties were fully tenanted. The major portion of the property at Birhana Road was occupied by the assessee for self-residence. The other part of that property was also tenanted and in possession of other persons being let out to them. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the valuation of a...
Lakhai Vs. Ram Niwas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All345
S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. A Suit No. 429 of 1986 was filed by the appellant in the court of Munsif, Baghpat, district Meerut for issue of a temporary (mandatory?) injunction against the respondents. In the said suit an application was made under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issue of a temporary injunction. No interim injunction was granted on this application but the trial court issued notices on the application. Against the order issuing notices to the respondents, the appellant filed Civil Revision No. 340 of 1986 in the court of District Judge, Meerut. After filing the revision an application was made for grant of temporary injunction again. The temporary injunction was granted by an order dated 1-12-1986. The respondents filed objections to the grant of temporary injunction. The District Judge by an order dated 15-12-1986 rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction and vacated the order dated 1-12-1986. Against the orderdated 15-12-1986 the present ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kashi Nath and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(All)177; [1988]170ITR28(All); [1987]33TAXMAN577(All)
K.J. Shetty, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: 'Whether there was material on record in support of the Tribunal's finding that the Commissioner had not given his reasons for his satisfaction that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue? ' 2. The assessee, M/s. Kashi Nath & Co., is a partnership firm. The firm was doing sarafa and pawning business. For the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Officer determined its income at Rs. 77,599, There was no appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act set aside the assessment order and directed the . Income-tax Officer to redo the assessment. But the appeal against the said order of the Commissioner has been allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the Commissioner has not given his re...
Triveni Structurals Ltd. Vs. Collector, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC31; 1987(13)LC433(Allahabad); 1987(30)ELT707(All)
1. Triveni Structural Limited is a public sector unit, being a joint enterprise of the Government of India and a party in Austria. It has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, dated September 1, 1984 and the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, dated July 11, 1986.For appreciating the controversy involved in this petition, a brief reference to the facts would be necessary. The petitioner company carries on the business of fabrication and erection of steel structures. In the course of its business, the company has to fabricate pipes and penstocks from steel and plates and sheets, which are excise duty payable items.2. In the year 1981-82 the duty payable under Tariff Item No. 68, which is a residuary item with the heading 'All other goods not elsewhere specified' was 8% ad valorem. The petitioner submitted a classification list in advance for payment of excise duty under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules,...
Ambika Prasad Sonar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1987
Reported in: [1987]168ITR444(All); [1987]33TAXMAN231(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in compliance with the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of Ambika Prasad Sonar who has been assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family.2. The assessment years in dispute are 1973-74 to 1977-78. Returns for all these years were filed by Ambika Prasad (hereinafter referred to as an 'assessee'), claiming therein the status of an individual. The assessments were, however, framed in the status of a Hindu undivided family.3. On the facts, as found by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and those as summarised in the statement of the case submitted to this court, it is not in dispute that up to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessments were all along made in the status of a Hindu undivided family of which Ambika Prasad and his two brothers, Panna Lal and Prem Chand, were its members and coparc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›