Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-10-1979
Reported in : AIR1980All92
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Mines Tribunal, Agra, dated 24-11-1977, determining the terms and conditions of the lease under Section 107 (2) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. 1 of 1951), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner, Sheobaran Singh, was an intermediary and Zamindar of Villages Ghaskata and Tantpur in tehsil Kheragarh, district Agra, before the enforcement of U. P. Act I of 1951. On the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, all the estates stood transferred to and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Consequences of vesting of an estate in the State are stated in Section 6 of the Act. It provides that when the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries.--(i) in every estate in such area including land ............, and(ii) in all sub-soil in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-03-1979
Reported in : (1980)IILLJ283All
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. By means of a notification dated 28th November, 1972 the State Government under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following two disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 2;(1) Kya Sevayojkon Dwara parishist 'ka' me ullikhit shramikon ko arthik varsh 1970-71 ka bonus bhugtan na kiya jana uchit tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi to, we kis dar evam anya kis vibran sahit bonus pane ke (2) Kya sevayoikon dawara parshist' kha' me ullikhit shramikon ko 1970-71 ka vibhinna daron par bonus vitarit karna uchit tatha Vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit sabhi shramik kis dar se bonus pane ke adhikari hain evam anya kis vivran sahit?2. Written statements were exchanged between the employer, the petitioner, and the union representing the workmen concerned which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 to the writ petition. The validity of the reference was challenged by the employer on the ground that by reason of Section 39 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-24-1979
Reported in : AIR1979All260
ORDERA. Banerji, J.1. These two civil revisions are between the same parties and arise out of two different orders passed in the same matrimonial suit and it will be convenient to decide them by a common order,2. Shri Jamboo Prasad Jain, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was null and void or a decree for divorce be granted to the petitioner against the respondent. He alleged in the petition that the marriage of the parties was solemnised at Rohtak on 25-4-1970 and the parties were Jain Hindus. It was alleged that the mother and the father of the respondent were in active collusion with the respondent and defrauded the petitioner. At the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness which comes within the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-23-1979
Reported in : [1980]121ITR708(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law which requires consideration by this Full Bench is whether levy of interest either under Section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for late filing of the return, or under Section 215 for not paying or short paying advance tax, or under Section 217 for not sending the estimate, is appealable under Section 246 of the Act.2. It is trite that an appeal is a creature of the statute. An assessee has a right of appeal only if there is a statutory provision for it. Chapter XX of the I.T. Act, 1961, deals with appeals and revisions. Section 246 provides:' 246. Any assessee, aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Income-tax Officer may appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against such order--... (c) an order against the assessee, where the assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this, Act or any order of assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or Section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-04-1979
Reported in : AIR1979All301
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. The question involved in this Reference made by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Stamp Act is as under: 'Whether the document under reference (Annexure I) comes within the definition of a 'settlement' as given in Section 2(24) Clause (c) of the Stamp Act and is chargeable with duty under Article 58-A Schedule I-B thereof or is a declaration of trust chargeable under Article 64-A Schedule I-B of the said Act?' 2. The facts leading to the above reference lie within a narrow compass. Sita Ram and Smt. Laxmi Devi were the owners of a house situate in Mohalla Sahabganj Padreuna, District Deoria. On 12-3-1962, the house was transferred to Goswami Tulsidas Vidyalaya, Padrauna. The donee failed to observe the conditions. Con-sequently, Sita Ram and Smt, Laxmi Devi, who were the donors, took over possession of the said house. On 31-5-1967, they executed the document under reference. The recitals in the aforesaid document show that as the donee of the previous gif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-04-1979
Reported in : (1980)16CTR(All)127; [1981]132ITR517(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, hereafter referred to as ' the Act' relates to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70. The respondent-assessee, an individual, was, inter alia, assessed to wealth-tax on the value of the jewellery amounting to Rs. 60,000, Rs. 62,000, Rs. 64,000, Rs. 66,000 and Rs. 70,000 for the aforesaid years, respectively, by the WTO, after repelling her; contention that the jewellery was not liable to tax since the jewellery being for her personal use was exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. The AAC, on appeals against those orders, following the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna : [1970]77ITR505(SC) , accepted the assessee's contention and directed the exclusion of the aforesaid value of jewellery.2. By Section 32 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from April 1, 1963, and the words 'but not including jewellery' were inserted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-28-1979
Reported in : [1980]122ITR451(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This reference, which relates to two assessment years, viz., 1967-68 and 1970-71, invites our answers to three questions, viz: '1. Whether, on the facts and' in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief in respect of its new unit for manufacturing lamp caps under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1967-68 and 1970-71 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in its opinion that the benefits in the shape of rent-free quarters and the bonus paid to employees could not be taken into account for the purpose of working out disallowance under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the levy of interest under section 217(1A) was not appealable and, therefore, the directions given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the Income-tax Officer to allow certain reliefs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-27-1979
Reported in : AIR1979All379
S.J. Hyder, J.1. These connected appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, dated 22nd of Aug. 1969 passed in Original Suit No. 6 of 1964. In order to appreciate the facts of the case, it is necessary to give the following pedigree which is not disputed by the parties:-- DEBI DAYAL ______________________________|______________________________ | | Mahadeo Prasad Athwaria = Smt. Bhagwanta Baldeo Prasad Athwaria (died 1909) Kunwar (died 1911) Smt. Basata | (died 1944) | Kunwar (died | | 22.7.61) | | __________|______________________ __________________|_____________________ | | | | | Tulsa Kunwar Ram Dev Durga Dev Bisheshwar Prasad Ishri Prasad = Purushottam (died Harichand | | Das Childless) | | | _____|_________ _____________| ___________|_______________________________________ |_______ | | | | | | | | | Mukund Mathura Radhey Sita Ram Jamuna Din Dayal Ram Kishan Kanhaiya Jwala Lal Das Shyam =Vimla Pd. Das Lal Prasad =Basant Devi | Devi |...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-11-1979
Reported in : [1979]120ITR342(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' A ') has at the instance of the assessee referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income derived by the assessee from processing of seeds was not entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 '2. The assessee is an incorporated company and the case relates to the first year of assessment. It returned an income of Rs. 47,726 and claimed exemptions under Sections 80-I and 80J of the Act. The exemptions claimed were disallowed by the ITO. The AAC allowed the exemption claimed under Section 80J, but refused that claimed under Section 80-I. The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was followed by a cross-objection by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to relief under Section 80J, but allowed exem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-23-1979
Reported in : [1980]124ITR199(All)
Rastogi, J.1. These two references under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made at the instance of the CIT, Lucknow, relate to similar set of facts and may conveniently be disposed of together. The assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72, the corresponding accounting periods being financial years ending March 31, 1970, and March 31, 1971, respectively. The assessee is a limited company and undertakes contracts for construction of tube-wells and supplying of stores. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee debited in its books a sum of Rs. 1,29,321 on account of damages and penalty and claimed deduction of the same from the profits and gains of this year. It appears that these amounts were paid by the assessee to the Government departments from whom it had taken certain contracts for breach of the terms of the same and it was claimed by it before the ITO that these payments were not made in violation of any law and as such they were allowa...
Tag this Judgment!