Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-14-1978
Reported in : AIR1978All255
J.M.L. Sinha, J.1. This is a defendant'ssecond appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13th October, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehra Dun.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal can briefly be stated as under ;Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and Sardar Swaran Singh, 'hereinafter called the appellant and the respondent respectively, were married on 2nd of October, 1973. Some differences having arisen between them, the respondent filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a declaration that his marriage with the appellant was null and void. It was alleged in the plaint that on 14th of October, 1973, when the appellant was found profusely bleeding from her private part, she was shown to a lady doctor and it was then discovered that the appellant was already having pregnancy with a treat of miscarriage. On being questioned the appellant confessed that she was quick with child and had taken medicine to get rid of the pre-gancy. The respondent, it is alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-01-1978
Reported in : AIR1978All323
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. I had the advantage of perusing the opinions written by my learned brothers and after the exhaustive discussion of the subject in those two elaborate judgments It has become conveniently feasible for me to record my own views in the case with considerable brevity. In my opinion the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs. I would only like to add with respect that though I agree with the ultimate conclusions of my learned brothers I am unable to agree with the opinion of Agrawal, J. on only one aspect of the case, namely, that respondents Nos, 4 to 9 had acquired the rights of hereditary tenants. I would rather subscribe to the contrary opinion of Mehrotra, J. and Gopi Nath, J, (in his referring order). 2. In a nutshell the dispute in this case arose between the petitioner who was a sub-tenant Inducted by the Zamin-! dar after obtaining a decree for ejectment under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and respondents Nos. 4 to 9' who were originally trespas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-25-1978
Reported in : AIR1978All386; [1978(37)FLR118]
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This group of writ petitions questions the constitutional vires of Section 37-A of the U. P, Excise Act, 1910, and of the notifications issued thereunder on March 30, and 31, 1978. These notifications have, in the main, introduced total prohibition of Tari in this State and partial prohibition in respect of country-made and foreign liquors.2. Some of the petitioners are traders in Tari, some others are licence-holders in country liquor, licence-holders in foreign liquors, holders of licences in F.L. 2, F.L. 6 and F.L. 7 and Bhang, and also individuals who say they are addicted to intoxicating liquors. The impugned notifications have totally banned the trade of petitioners (except petitioners in Writ Petition No. 810 of 1978, who claim to be addicts). They all challenge Section 37-A aforesaid on the following grounds:--(1) Legislative competences(2) excessive delegations(3) contravention of Article 19 of the Constitution; and(4) violation of Article 14 of the Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-02-1978
Reported in : AIR1978All201
ORDERA. Banerji, J. 1. This election petition has been filed by an elector Sri Ram Autar. He seeks to challenge the election of the returned Candidate Kunwar Satyabir from 22 Bijnor Assembly Constituency held in June 1977. The election has been challenged on the ground that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by a non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Conduct of Election Rules and the Provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. In other words, he seeks the election of the respondent to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner's case very briefly stated is as follows:That the Respondent who had filed his nomination seeking the symbol of the Janta Party, had not been able to file a notice in writing signed by the President of the Janta Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-11-1978
Reported in : AIR1978All405; [1979]116ITR387(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. One ofthe questions which arose in this reference was whether interest paid on arrears of sugarcane purchase tax was an allowable deduction. At the hearing of this reference learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on Kamlapat Moti Lal v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1975 UPTC 408 : 1975 Tax LR 1036 in support of his submission that interest so paid was a deductible expenditure.2. The Bench hearing this reference felt that M/s. Kamlapat Moti Lal's case 1975 Tax LR 1036 (All) requires reconsideration. It hence referred the caseto a Full Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.3. In Kamlapat's case 1975 Tax LR 1036 this Court laid down two main propositions.-(1) The U. P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act did not call interest as penalty. It made provision for interest as well as penalty separately, and It also made independent provisions for their recovery. Interest was not penalty. In carrying on a business an assessee may not be able to discharge his finan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-15-1978
Reported in : [1978]115ITR1(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 18th May, 1977, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 273A(i)(ii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in sarafa and money-lending. It was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1964-65. It, however, did not file returns in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 returns were filed on 25th March, 1970, and 6th March, 1971, respectively. It appears that while dealing with the case of the year 1969-70, the Income-tax Officer concerned considered it necessary to verify the correctness and completeness of the returns filed by the petitioner. Hence, a notice was issued on February 8, 1971, under Section 143(2) of the Act requiring the presence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-18-1978
Reported in : [1978]114ITR884(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer (Central) Circle, 4, Kanpur, dated 29th August, 1973, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and for a direction restraining the said Income-tax Officer from taking further proceedings pursuant to the above notice. The necessary facts are these:M/s. Manoolal Kedarnath, the petitioner, is a firm consisting of two partners, Rameshwar Prasad and Jageshwar Prasad. The business of the firm was that of a dealer in atta, maida, vegetables, ghee, etc. The original assessment for the assessment year 1965-66, for which relevant accounting year ended on 3rd November, 1964, was completed on March 24, 1970, on an income of Rs. 50,990. On August 27, 1971, a search was made under Section 132(1) of the Act, at the business premises of the petitioner-firm as well as at the residential houses of its partners. In the sea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-07-1978
Reported in : AIR1978All490
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the validity of certain notifications issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and Excise Commissioner, U. P. under various sections of the U. P, Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Notification No. 1130-E/XIII-523-72 under Section 4, No. 1128-E/XIII-523-72 under Section 40, No. 1131-E/XIII-523-72 under Section 75 and No. 1132-E/XIII-523-72 under Section 76 of the Act were issued by the State Government. All these notifications are dated February 13, 1978. A fifth Notification No. 11719/XXV-19 was issued on the same date by the Excise Commissioner, U. P. All these five notifications were published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated Feb. 13, 1978. By the notification under Section 4 it was declared that 16 spirituous medicinal preparations specified therein shall be deemed to be liquor for the purposes of transport, possession and sale only within the meaning of the Act. One of these 16 spirituous medicinal prepara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-19-1978
Reported in : [1979]116ITR215(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in holding that, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass order of penalty in respect of the assessment year 1969-70?'2. The assessee carries on retail business at Delhi in woollen goods. For the assessment year 1969-70, it filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 28,170. The assessment was, however, computed on a total income of Rs. 27,860. On appeal, the total income computed by the ITO was sustained and a loss of Rs. 14,313 was determined by the AAC. While computing the assessment, the ITO initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, and referred the matter to the IAC under Section 274 of the Act. The IAC held that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were attracted, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 by his order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-08-1978
Reported in : (1979)9CTR(All)39; [1979]119ITR895(All); [1979]1TAXMAN26(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in running cold storages at Farrukhabad, Kamalganj and Allahabad. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the assessee filed income-tax returns and claimed relief under Section 80-I of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter described as 'the Act'). The case of the assessee was that as it was engaged in the activity of production of processed seed and, as such, being a 'priority industry' within the meaning of Section 80B(7) was entitled to a deduction as provided in Section 80-I of the Act. The ITO negatived the claim. In appeal the judgment of the ITO was affirmed by the AAC of Income-tax. The AAC held that the assessee stored the potatoes belonging to Others by maintaining the temperature at 35 degrees. It further found that by trying to preserve the seeds in the same condition in which it was placed, it cannot be said that the assessee was engaged in the production, of processed seeds. The assessee took up the matte...
Tag this Judgment!