Allahabad Court August 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.
Mittal and Company Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC42(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. These are the two revisions one each under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (briefly Act No. 1948) and the Central Sales Tax Act by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 31st May, 1986. Both are disposed of together by a combined order.2. Let me take up first the revision relating to the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that no sale within U. P. was effected during this year. As the manufacturing account was not maintained by the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacture of chatni and churan, the assessing officer estimated the sales within U. P. on the ground that the assessee had effected sales within U. P. in the past also. The question for consideration is whether the sales within U. P. can be estimated simply for the reason that the book version has been rejected specially when there is a clear contention of the assessee that no sale within U. P. was effected during this year.3. Learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to Section 12-A o...
Rameshwari Devi Vs. Raj Bali Shah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All68
N.N. Mithal, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the court below rejecting the application under Section 372 on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The respondent has put in appearance and has no objection if the appeal is allowed and the succession certificate is granted to the appellant.2. The main ground on which the application has been rejected was that according to the court below it had no jurisdiction in the matter. It has been mentioned that in view of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act the court of the place where the deceased had ordinarily resided atthe time of his death or where the deceased had property only had jurisdiction to try the case under Section 372. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a certified? copy of the application moved under Section 372 of the Act, in para 7 whereof it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased had his immoveable property within the jurisdiction of the court. Section...
Ramesh Chandra Brick Kiln Owner Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC52(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. Raising a very short but interesting question this revision is filed by the dealer carrying on business of brick kiln for the assessment year 1980-81, against the Tribunal's order dated 11th August, 1986.2. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee carried on business of brick kiln up to 10th June, 1980 and then started a new kiln on a different location on 25th March, 1981. The Sales Tax Officer made a single assessment in regard to the turnover of both the businesses. The assessee is the proprietary concern. The contention of the assessee was that the turnover of two separate businesses should have been assessed separately- under two assessment orders and the Sales Tax Officer erred in having clubbed the turnover of the two separate businesses. The contention of the assessee having not been accepted by the Tribunal, the assessee has come up in revision. The short question for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the turnover of the two...
Parvez Ahmad and ors. Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All18
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was initially filed on 16-4- 1987 by 15 petitioners against the Aligarh Muslim University Controller of Examination, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Dean Faculty of Engineering for Mandamus directing the respondents aforesaid to permit them to appear in the Examination of B.Sc. Engineering (Final year) for the academic year 1986-87 which was going to commence on 18-4-1987 along with an application for interim order.2. The petitioners 1 to 13 were the students of B.Sc. Engineering (final year) of Mechanical Engineering and petitioners 14 and 15 were the students of B.Sc. Engineering (Chemical) final year. They had completed their IV year. They were however, detained and were not permitted in the V year due to shortage of attendance.3. Chapter XVII of the Academic Ordinances deals with 'Examinations'. Clause I of the Ordinance lays down as to who are regular students. It reads :'(a) regular students, i.e. cand...
Bhagwan Das S/O Late Hans Raj Bagla Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)LC97(Allahabad)
ORDER1. When this case was taken up today, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated on a query made by the Court, that he does not want to file a rejoinder affidavit and that the matter be heard today.2. We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur and have considered the averments made in the petition and the counter affidavit. We find that the matter is being dealt with by the Department itself we feel that it is appropriate that the respondents take a decision in the Petitioner's matter at a very early date and that we should not intervene in the matter at this stage.3. One of the prayers, which was made on behalf of the petitioner, was that we should direct the respondents to release the petitioner's truck provisionally. We are of the opinion that the petitioner should make a fresh proper application in this regard before the Departmental authority concerned, who shall, as also stated by the learned Counsel...
Mahboob Singh Subhash Chand Arhati Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC229(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a revision filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82 against the Tribunal's order dated 31st May, 1986.2. The facts are that the original assessment for the aforesaid year was made by the assessing officer on 16th July, 1983. Thereafter certain entries made in the books of M/s. Mool Chand Multan Singh, commission agent, Baraut, maintained by the assessee were noticed and the proceedings for reassessment were initiated. The assessee filed an explanation before the assessing officer at the stage of reassessment, a certified copy of which has been filed by the assessee. In that explanation dated 25th September, 1985, which was the date of hearing, the assessee clearly stated that M/s. Mool Chand Multan Singh, Baraut, be summoned so that the discrepancies might be explained. The grievance of the assessee is that that despite the aforesaid request, none on behalf of M/s. Mool Chand Multan Singh was summoned by the assessing officer and the reassessment w...
Beni Prasad Sidh Gopal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD52(All.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 and another appeal toy the revenue for the assessment year 1981-82 involving one common issue, thus they are disposed of by this composite order.2. The common issue, that is involved in these two appeals, is whether the commission of Rs. 1 lakh on account of serving as sole selling agent of M/s Amausi Textiles Mills Ltd. for the period ending 12th July, 1978, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, which is not received due to a financial crisis of the principals but received in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1981-82, is assessable as income for assessment year 1979-80 or for 1981-82.3. The other connected issue, which is in the assessee's appeal, is regarding interest @ 12 per cent on Rs. 4 lakhs kept as deposit with the principals for securing the sole selling agency of sale of yarn manufactured from cotton and staple fibre, which is not received and paid by the principals due to financial c...
Madan Lal Vs. District Judge, Pauri Garhwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All40
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. The Petitioner Madan Lal borrowed money from a widow Smt. Premalata Devi resident of Badrinath Mat, Kotdwara district Pauri Garwhal, The amount was Rs. 4,270/-. The money was not returned to the widow consequently she had to take recourse to filing a Suit No. 9 of 1968 for recovery of this amount before the Court of Munsif, Lansdowne. The suit was decreed on 2 August, 1972. It appears from the record that no appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the trial court. Subsequently, the widow put in execution of the decree which she had obtained. This was numbered as Case No. 9 of 1984 before the Munsif, Lansdowne. Subsequently during the pendency of the execution case, 12 years after it was decreed, becoming wiser that a plea under the Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 was available the petitioner took recourse to objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that a decree cannot be executed for reasons that the widow afor...
Ram Shiroman and ors. Vs. District Deputy Director of Consolidation, A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All141
ORDERD.S. Sinha, J.1. In the proceedings before Consolidation Authorities, giving rise to instant writ petition, the petitioners traced the source of their title or right in respect of disputed land to be entries in relevant record, prepared under the U, P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in favour of Shri Banshi, father of petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and grandfather of petitioner No. 5. The entries were shown to have been made in pursuance of orders dt. 17-3-1971, 15-3-1972, 9-9-1972 and 18-9-1972 purported to have been passed in consolidation cases Nos. 1021,1358,1378 and 1648 respectively. Prior to year 1971 the land id dispute had been recorded as BANJAR belonging to concerned Gaon Sabha.2. Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Allahabad, the respondent No. 2, before whom the proceedings had been initiated, found it as a fact that, except case No. 1021, none of the aforesaid casesexisted and the orders alleged to have been passed therein were non-existent. About case No. 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.C. Wahal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(All)180; [1988]170ITR635(All)
A.N. Varma, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the commission of Rs. 25,000 received by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s. Universal Tyres Co. was exempt from tax under Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and the proceedings relate to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee enjoys income from commission on the sale of products like cycle, linoleum, jute-matting, etc., manufactured by various Birla concerns. During the relevant previous year, he was paid a sum of Rs. 25,000 by Universal Tyres Ltd. Under a revised return, he asserted that this amount was exempt from tax under Section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming the same as a receipt which was of a casual and non-recurring nature not falling under any of the provisos to Section 10(3). In the alternative, it wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »