Allahabad Court April 1989 Judgments
Sultan Ahmad (deceased by L.R's.) Vs. Rashid Ahmad and others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All47
1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 on 17-10-1967 was a fictitious transaction as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interferring with his possession. A further relief was claimed asking the defendant No. I to return the consideration of the subsequent sale effected by him in favour of defendant No. 2 to 5.2. The trial court had decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant No. 1 the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit of the appellant was dismissed. Thereafter this second appeal.3. The second appeal was admitted on thefollowing question of law:'Whether the decree for cancellation of the sale deed could be refused on the ground that the parties were pari-delicto although it was found that the sale deed was in fact a fictitious transaction entered into by the plaintiff with the object of defrauding his creditors.'4. For the determinati...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Rawal and anr. Vs. Nidhi Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ961
B.N. Katju, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying that the order of the Sessions Judge dated 6-10-1988 in revision and the summoning order dated 11-8-1986 of the Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as the prosecution of the applicants in complaint Case No. 2185 of 198,6 be quashed.2. A preliminary objection was raised by the State Counsel before the learned single Judge who heard this application that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1988 All Cri C 54 the case of Khem Singh v. Nathoo Ram Sharma, 1978 All Cri C 262 did not lay down good law and this application was not maintainable.3. The learned single Judge accordingly referred the undermentioned two questions for consideration by a larger Bench:(1) Whether the law laid down by' this Court in Khem Singh v. Nathoo Ram Sharma, 1978 All Cri C 262 is good law, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raja Kumar Manchanda v. State of K...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Drona Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR140(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The petitioner, a tax practitioner on the income-tax side at Kanpur, has filed this petition for quashing of the order dated March 23, 1989, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Circle 11(1), Kanpur, for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. 2. It is urged that since the notices issued under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act are without jurisdiction, the entire assessment orders are liable to be quashed. According to learned counsel, the procedure provided under the Act, namely, the existence, applying mind to it and recording reasons, getting endorsement of the Commissioner were not followed. Therefore, the conditions precedent for exercise of reopening were absent.True, the law is well-settled. Notice for escaped assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act is a jurisdictional notice. But it was not raised in the reply to the show cause notice. No finding was invited of the assessing authority. And if it be so, then it...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Ply-wood Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]79STC400(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. Bharat Ply-wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') being aggrieved against an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,600 under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') has come up in this revision. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The brief facts are that the assessee imported from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh certain quantity of veneer for manufacturing plywood, by road transport through Tamkohi Raj check-post, District Deoria. The goods were supplied by R.K. Industries, Purnia (Bihar). It appears that the assessee was issued by its assessing officer form XXXI bearing No. 0220467 which it forwarded to its ex-U.P. supplier, namely, R.K. Industries along with its supply order. The goods were despatched by the supplier on 3rd of August, 1984. On 9th August, 1984, when the vehicle reached Tamkohi Raj check-post, located in the State of Uttar Pradesh the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Kamil Bhai Ismail Ji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR310(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and for the Department, we are of the opinion that the following question of law arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restoring the matter to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with the direction to ignore the additional evidence brought on record in remandproceedings ?'2. We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case to the question quoted above and submit the same to this court....
Tag this Judgment!Mascot (India) Tools and Forgings P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR588(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned standing counsel for Income-tax Department, we are of the opinion that the following questions of law do arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi:'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether the Tribunal's finding is vitiated in law in doubting the market value of plant and machinery without any material and ignoring the materials on record ?' 2. We, accordingly, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and submit the same to this court....
Tag this Judgment!Bala DIn Yadav and Another Vs. Ramdulare and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All19
1. This is defendant's second appeal which has been admitted solely for the consideration of the following question which has been formulated by the Hon'ble Judge:'as to whether on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants were having their shops either permanent or moveable and were doing business on the Patri of the road for the last more than twenty years, a decree could be passed merely on the ground that the plaintiff had a right of frontgage of his premises without determining the reasonable extent of the frontage.'2. For the decision of this question facts may be briefly stated thus: A suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for a mandatory injunction seeking the removal of certain structures said to have been unlawfully constructed by the defendants over a piece of land marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H stated to constitute the frontage of the plaintiffs house. The allegation was that the structures had the effect of obstructing the access ...
Tag this Judgment!Bareilly RosIn and Turpentine Manufacturing Company Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC397(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These three revisions at the instance of the assessee are directed against the judgment dated April 25, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly Bench I, partly allowing the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 (all Central) and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 1971-72 (Central). Since all the revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of rosin and turpentines. It is registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee disclosed its total gross turnover for the assessment year 1970-71 at Rs. 11,74,152.39, for the assessment year 1971-72 at Rs. 9,53,527.84 and for the assessment year 1972-73 at Rs. 4,02,775.19 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Offi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kisan Udyog and Another Vs. United Bank of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All8
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 11-3-1987 by which the application filed on behalf of the defendants to frame Certain other issues Had been rejected by the learned V Addl. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Tyagi, has very strenuously urged that the application seeking framing of five issues has been illegally rejected in spite of the fact that such pleadings on which those issues arise Were categorically pleaded. However impressive the submission may be it is difficult to agree. No doubt, issues are framed on the basis of the pleadings as it facilitates the parties to adduce evidence in the light of the pleadings and on the basis of the issues struck. Presumably the application did not find favour with the trial Court on account of its having been found at the stage of final hearing. It is always expedient that the trial Court frame issues on the basis of the categorical pleadings but ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. TIn Manufacturing Co. of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC475(Allahabad)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision at the instance of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., is directed against the judgment dated 18.2.1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of tin containers carrying on its business at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. In die original assessment order dated 25.11.1983 the sales of tin containers in the amount of Rs. 9,51,431.64 made against Form-B was held to be not liable to sales tax. Subsequently a notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was sent to the assessee and the tax in the amount of Rs. 47,572/- was imposed on the sales of tin containers. Assessee feeling aggrieved went up in first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed. Assessee feeling aggrieved preferred second appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order.3. The question sought to be answered by this Court in the instant case is whether on the facts...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »