Allahabad Court May 1997 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.
Sundar Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1058
Kundan Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15-12-1979 passed by Sri M.N. Asthna, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1979 whereby Devi Deen has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Sunder Lal Swarup alias Kalyan Singh, Narain Das, Ram Adhar, Murlidhar, Shiroman Singh and Narain Das Swarnkar have been convicted under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Budh Singh has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 29(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to 3 months' R.I. Sunder Lal, Devi Deen, Ram Swarup alias Kalayan Singh, Narain Das, Ram Adhar, Mulidhar, Shiroman Singh, Narain Das Swarnkar have also been convicted under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. Sunder Lal, Devi Deen, Ram Swarup, Narain Da...
Hindon Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1997
Reported in: 1997LC12(Allahabad); 1997(93)ELT332(All)
1. List has been revised. None appears for the respondent. We have therefore, heard only counsel for the petitioners.2. It is regretfully pointed out that in excise and custom matters involving highest stakes no one is putting in appearance for the respondents and, therefore, most of the cases go unattended on behalf of the respondents.3. By this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned notice dated 11-3-1983 and 29-4-1983 purporting to have been issued under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly 'the Act').4. By the impugned notices, the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why duty on rubberised cotton fabric be not levied under Section 11A of the Act.5. The contention of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 - a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 - is engaged in the manufacture of rubber beltings and allied rubber products, that during the course of manufacturing of rubber beltings, an item called 'rubberised cot...
income-tax Officer Vs. Kalyan Das Madan Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(All)483; [1998]230ITR191(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', Delhi, referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that two separate assessments should be made, one for the period before the death of Smt. Bishan Devi, and the other for the period after her death ? 2. Whether, an the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in taking the view that the assessee's case was governed by Section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the incomes of the two periods could not be clubbed ?'2. From the facts as stated in the statement of the case, it is clear that the Commissioner of Income-tax recorded a clear finding that the partnership deed dated July 28, 1974, did not contain any agreement to the contrary that in the event of death of a partner the...
Standard Chemical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(All)398; [1998]229ITR193(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 19,081 levied as damages due to default in payment of provident fund contribution was an allowable deduction under Section 28(i) and/or Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (briefly 'the Act'), as it stood in the assessment year 1974-75 relevant for the purpose of the case, provides that where an employer makes default in the payment of any contribution to the fund, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf may recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages, not exceeding the amount of arrears as it may deem fit to impose.3. The Appellat...
Narendra Kumar Vs. Addl. Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC511(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (briefly 'the Act') and the order dated September 21, 1982 (annexure '4' to the writ petition) passed under Section 21 of the Act.3. The case relates to the assessment year 1977-78, the financial year for which ended on March 31, 1978. It is said by the counsel for the petitioner that the firm M/s. Gopal Iron Industries in respect of which impugned order has been passed under Section 21 of the Act, stood dissolved on March 31, 1978, that is, at the end of the financial year relating to 1977-78.4. In para 4 of the writ petition, it is averred that after the dissolution of the firm, the tenancy of the shop in which the aforesaid firm continued the business, also stood terminated and the shop had been let out by the land-lord Abdul Rauf and others to one Sri Uma Shankar, who had no concern with the aforesaid firm. The shop was in the tenancy of Sr...
Malkhan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ96
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Mal khan has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Sections 307 and 302, I.P.C. and sentence of 7 years R.I. and imprisonment for life by the judgment and order dated 26-10-1979 by IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 283 of 1978. Rampal was also prosecuted along with the appellant in S.T. No. 9 of 1979. He was convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and was sentenced to the period already undergone. He has however not preferred any appeal against his conviction.2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that a quarrel took place between the children of the appellant-Malkhan and the deceased Khunnu in which the appellant gave abuses to the deceased and his parents. The deceased wanted to lodge a F.I.R. but on account of intervention by the village people he did not do so though the appellant had held out a threat. At about 4.00 P.M. on the date of incident i.e. 12-2-1978 Km. Mania daughter of the appellant and co-accused Rampal plucked peas from the ...
S.P. Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ643
ORDERA.N. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is manufacturer of Ice Cream selling under the brand name of 'Go Go Ice Cream'. The manufacturing activities are being carried out within the municipal limits of Lucknow. On 28-11-81 in the morning two different Food Inspectors collected samples of Ice Cream from the manufacturing premises of the petitioner. Food Inspector Sri K. M. Lal Srivastava had collected the sample of 'Vanilla Ice Cream' at 11.10 a.m. and Food Inspector D.P.S. Chauhan had collected the sample of 'Pista Ice Cream' at 10.30 a.m. in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Cri. Misc. Case No. 1553 of 1984 relates to the sample of 'Vanilla Ice Cream' and Crl. Misc. Case No. 1554 of 1985 relates to the sample of 'Pista Ice Cream'.2. Both these samples were sent to the Public Analyst who too vide his report dated 15-12-81 reported that the sample of Vanilla Ice Cream contained 6.27% Milk Fat as against the prescribed standard of not less than 10% and as such, the sample was found ...
Balwant Singh and Sons and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC206(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This petition is filed for quashing impugned orders dated March 14, 1995, annexure 4 to the writ petition, refusing to entertain the refund applications made by petitioners.3. Brief facts are that for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, the petitioners purchased chocolate from M/s. Hindustan Coka Products Limited, Ghaziabad, which was subsequently renamed as Cadbury India Limited. There was come confusion about the rate of tax. The belief was that the rate of tax was 8.8 per cent and at that rate the tax was realised by Cadbury India Ltd., from the petitioners and the same had been deposited with the department. When the assessment was completed on M/s. Hindustan Coka Products Ltd.--predecessor of Cadbury India Ltd.--sales tax in the assessment was levied at the rate of 8.8 per cent. The dispute was carried in appeal and then the rate of tax was reduced to 5.5 per cent from 8.8 per cent. This is how the petitioners-purchasing dealers became ent...
E. Hill and Company Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ76All; (1997)2UPLBEC1016
S.R. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri. H.S. Nigam appearing for the petitioner and Sri. J.N. Tiwari, appearing for the respondents.2. Impugned herein is the order dated January 1, 1997 (Annexure 11) passed by the Re- gional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P., Varanasi under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By means of the said order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P., Varanasi has determined the dues payable for the period under reference by the petitioner on account of Provident Fund Contribution (Difference of Interest) (Employees' & Employers' share) Payable into A/c No. 1 to the tune of Rs 12,67,608/-. The period under reference is 1987-88to 1991-92.3. It brooks no dispute that the petitioner had filed its reply to the show cause notice, served to it before passing the impugned order. It has also not been disputed and rightly so, in view of Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in Indian Mica and Micanite Industries Ltd. v....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ahmad HussaIn Dildar Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(All)375; [1998]229ITR169(All)
1. In compliance with the direction given under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing depreciation for the first time in the assessment year 1971-72 on account of notional addition of Rs. 12,970 made in the 'assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 ?'2. The case relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and the relevant accounting year is the calendar year 1971. The assessee is a company. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee, inter alia, raised the following contention ;'The Income-tax Officer has not taken into account the capital investment made in the plant and machinery as has been held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appellate orders dated March 31, 1970, for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 amounting to Rs. 12,917 ?'3. The appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »