Allahabad Court March 1989 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.
Mazdoor Sabha, Ganga Sugar Mills Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR78]; (1993)IIILLJ523All
Ravi S. Dhavan, J.1. Two writ petitions are before the Court challenging the award of the Labour Court, Meerut. One writ petition has been filed by the workers through their Union, Mazdoor Sabha, Ganga Sugar Mills. Twenty two workmen have been denied reinstatement. The petition seeks to have the award quashed. This writ petition is No. 4401 of 1984. The other is a petition by the employer, hereinafter referred to as such, by which thirty eight workmen have the benefit of an order of the Labour Court, aforesaid, for reinstatement. Aggrieved the employer seeks quashing of the award. The employer is Messrs Gangeshwar Limited, Deoband, DistrictSaharanpur engaged in the manufacturing of crystal sugar. Both the awards are dated within one day of each other. The award in the workmen's petition is dated November 22, 1983 arising out of Adjudication Case No. 35 of 1976. The award which the employer has challenged arises out of Adjudication Case No. 20 of 1976 (old Adjudication Case No. 429 of 1...
Munshi Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ984
A.N. Dikshita, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by Munshi Lal and Chunnu Lal alias Chunnu against the judgment and order dated 28-3-1979 passed by Sri Ikarmul Bari, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 452 of 1975, Munshi Lal has been convicted under Sections 304 and 323/34, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-or in default of payment of fine to six months' further rigorous imprisonment as also to three months' R.I. respectively under the two counts. The other appellant Chunnu Lal has been convicted under Sections 325/34 and 323, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further six months' R.I. and to three months' R.I. under the two counts. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is as follows :--Suraj Pal, P.W. 4, and Shantanu Kumar were residents of village Amauli, P. S. Sajeti, Kanpur, and had been students of G...
Renu Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC223(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. By means of this revision, the assessee has challenged the order dated 11th December, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to the collection of difference of tax under Section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1975-76. During the said year the assessee carried on business in manufacture of chemicals by the use of 15 forms 3-Kha. The assessee had purchased hydrochloric acid worth Rs. 24,539. Out of it, it manufactured calcium chloride and magnesium chloride to the tune of Rs. 2,32,141 which were sent on consignment basis outside the State. These facts are not in dispute.2. The sales tax department, however, sought to collect the difference between the amount of tax for which the assessee would be liable to pay in Uttar Pradesh on the said notified goods minus the tax paid by the assessee. In the present case, the assessee had paid tax on the purchase of raw materials at concessional rate and it was found that out of the raw materials p...
Phoolchand Gajanand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(All)190; [1989]178ITR535(All)
D.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated July 8, 1977, passed in exercise of the powers under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 7,190 could be disallowed under Section 37(2B) of the Act ?'2. On the basis of the said reference, ITR No. 831 of 1977, was registered in this court.3. The brief facts are that Phoolchand Gajanand, which is a registered firm, carried on wholesale business and, during the assessment year 1974-75, it claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 7,190 regarding the messing expenditure of its customers as it was running a mess for the facility of the customers. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim under Section 37(2B) of the Act. On appeal being filed, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-...
R. C. Vaish Vs. Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR283(All)
This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. By the order, the following two questions have been referred :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the estate duty chargeable under section 5 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not deductible in computing the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the value of the interest of the three male lineal descendants of the deceased in the joint family property was includible under section 34(1)(c) of the Act for rate purpose ?'The first question is covered by the decision in Govind Prasad v. CED : [1981]127ITR642(All) whereas the second question by the decision in Badri Vishal Tandon v. Asst. CED : [1976]103ITR468(All) . Both of these decisions are those of our High Court.Shri Bharatji Agarwal strenuously contended that the first question has not bee...
Obeetee Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR527(All); [1989]46TAXMAN318(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Aggrieved by the refusal to allow the carry forward of losses as the return of income under Section 139(1) of Income-tax Act was filed beyond time, the petitioner, a manufacturer and exporter of hand-knitted woollen carpets, has filed this petition. It has been urged that the law on the carry forward of losses having been settled by the Supreme Court, this court and other courts in numerous decisions, the order was manifestly erroneous. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. : [1970]77ITR518(SC) , Presidency Medical Centre (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1977]108ITR838(Cal) , Telster Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1979]116ITR610(Bom) and CIT v. Manmohan Das : [1966]59ITR699(SC) . Learned counsel submitted that the law having been declared by the Supreme Court, it was the law of the land and the Income-tax Officer was bound to follow it. And the omission to do so vitiates the order.2. The legal position being clear, the remedy, in our opinion, as rightly...
Saharanpur Engineering Works Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC14; 1989(24)LC104(Allahabad); 1989(41)ELT616(All)
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 35G(3) of Central Excises andSalt Act on behalf of assessee for calling question of law referred in paragraph 16 of theapplication. We have heard learned counsel for assessee and learned counsel for department. In our opinion only question No. 4 is a question of law which arises. But we reframethe question as under :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the proceedings couldbe initiated within five years or six months under Section 11A of the Act.' We accordingly direct the Tribunal of Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to draw the statement of facts on the question formulatedabove and submit the same to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Kesho Ram (Huf).
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR572(All)
R. M. SAHAI J. - The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 31,456 representing the income of the three group Hindu undivided families, Keshoram Shanti Devi, Vijay Kumar Ashok Kumar and Jugmander Dass Dinesh Kumar ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It filed a return of its income and claimed that the income earned by so-called group Hindu undivided families styled as Kesho Ram Shanti Devi, Vijay Kumar Ashok Ashok Kumar and Jugmander Dass Dinesh Kumar should not be added in the income of the assessee as partial partition had been effected. This claim of the assess was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner recorded a finding in favour of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›