Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-13-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All596
Mathur, J. 1. Special Appeal No. 499 of 1972 is by Hakim Singh, petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his Writ Petition No. 3306 of 1970, wherein the judgments and decrees of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner in a revenue suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were challenged. This appeal was preferred even though under the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Ordinance), later replaced by the Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amending Act') such an appeal was not maintainable. In the Special Appeal the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of the Amending Ordinance and the Amending Act. At the time of the hearing of the Special Appeal at the stage of admission the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-20-1973
Reported in : [1975]35STC174(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The assessee is a chemist. He prepares medicine mixtures according to doctors' prescriptions and sells them. The disclosed turnover amounted to Rs. 8,744. The assessing officer disbelieved the quantum and assessed the assessee to sales tax under Section 3-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as a manufacturer after determining the turnover at Rs. 20,000. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that he was not a manufacturer. On appeal the findings as well as the quantum were affirmed. The assessee took the matter in revision.2. The Additional Judge (Revisions) held that in view of the decision of this court in Dr. Sukh Deo v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1963] 14 S.T.C. 581, to the effect that there cannot be a manufacture unless the resulting produce is a commercially different article, the assessee cannot be said to have manufactured a commercially different article. The view of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-03-1973
Reported in : [1974]33STC54(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This writ petition proceeds on the ground that Sub-rule (5) of Rule 25-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules is ultra vires the Rule-making power of the State Government. The Bench hearing the writ petition felt that in view of the decision of a Division Bench in Messrs. Hulas Rai Tulsi Ram Oil Mills v. State of U.P. Civil Misc. Writ No. 6295 of 1970, decided on 19th May, 1972; since reported at [1974] 33 S.T.C. 47, in which the constitutional validity of this rule was upheld, this case should more properly engage the attention of a Full Bench. That is how the matter has been laid before this Bench.2. Haji Ismail Noor Mohammad and Company, the petitioner, is a registered partnership firm. It is registered under the U.P. as well as the Central Sales Tax Acts. It carries on the business of manufacturing oils from groundnuts and oil-seeds and sells the oils manufactured by it within the State and also in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It exports the oils to Nepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-15-1973
Reported in : [1974]104ITR214(All)
Gulati, J.1. In compliance with an order of this court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has submitted this statement of the case and has referred the following two questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of Rs. 70,000 can be said to have escaped assessment because of the failure or omission on the part of the assessee so as to attract the provisions of Section 34(1)(a) of the Act ? 2. If the answer to the above question be in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in affirming the assessment for the year 1943-44 made by the Income-tax Officer on February 22, 1952 ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of Sahu jagdish Prasad and his sons. The family carried on a business in respect of which it adopted Dashra year as the accounting year. In the books relating to the previous year relevant to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-15-1973
Reported in : [1975]98ITR359(All)
Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner, Behari Lal, runs a business in the name of M/s. Kundan Lal Behari Lal at Chandausi of which he is the sole proprietor. He is being assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. He, however, was notbeing assessed to wealth-tax. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 20th November, 1971, he went to his counsel in connection with his case under the Income-tax Act for the year 1969-70, when he was told by his counsel that he was liable to wealth-tax. On the following day when he appeared before the Income-tax Officer in connection with the income-tax assessment for the year 1969-70, he informed the Income-tax Officer, who was also the Wealth-tax Officer, that he would be submitting his wealth-tax return for the years 1964-65 to 1970-71, according to the legal advice given to him. He goes on to say that the wealth-tax returns for the aforesaid years were prepared on the 28th November, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-01-1973
Reported in : AIR1974All48
ORDERHari Swarup, J. 1. This civil revision has been filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal against the order of the trial Court dismissing the defendant's application for deciding the suit in terms of an alleged compromise. In the suit, an application (20-C) was moved on 7-9-1970 by the parties stating that talks of compromise were going on between the parties and they had already appointed an arbitrator (Panch). It was further stated that as the arbitrator was likely to take some time in giving his award the hearing of the case be adjourned and later on the suit may be decided in terms of the award to be given by the arbitrators (Panchon). On 20-10-1970 the defendant moved an application with a prayer that the suit may be decided in terms of the award given by the arbitrators. The plaintiff filed objections to the award and contended, inter alia, that the arbitrators had mis-conducted themselves as well as the proceedings. When the matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-04-1973
Reported in : [1974]97ITR285(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following two questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the word 'month' occurring in Section 271(1)(a)(i) referred to English calendar month? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the penalty should be calculated with reference to the tax found due on the date of the completion of the assessment after deducting, inter alia, taxes paid by the assessee as advance tax and tax as per provisional assessment ?' 2. The assessee did not file his return for the assessment year 1958-59 by November 15, 1958, up to which date the Income-tax Officer had allowed time. The return was filed on February 18, 1959, after about three months of the expiry of that date. After the assessment had been completed on April 1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-09-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All476
Omprakash Trivedi, J.1. This revision has been referred for decision to Full Bench by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, dated 17-4-1972 on the ground that there appeared to be a conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Shri Ram v. Shripat Singh : AIR1957All106 and Rahmetullah v. Vidya Bhusan : AIR1963All602 .2. The facts leading to this reference, so far as material for our present purposes, are as follows:There was a written agreement dated 9-2-1959 between the District Co-operative Development Federation Ltd., Pratapgarh, petitioner, and Ram Samujh Tewari, opposite party, by which Ram Samujh Tewari was appointed Thekedar for running a brick kiln. One of the terms of the agreement was that in case of dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement the same would be referred for arbitration by the Deputy Commissioner, Pratapgarh. In accordance with this stipulation an application was moved by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-19-1973
Reported in : [1974]93ITR27(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Messrs. Thakur Das Shy am Sunder, prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow, dated 15th of January, 1972. 2. The petitioner is a commission agent carrying on its business in Shahjahanpur, It claims that in the district of Shahjahanpur there is a long standing custom according to which the commission agents charge onevery transaction of sale of goods worth Rs. 100, a sum of 15 paise from the person to whom goods are sold and 10 paise from the person whose goods are sold through them as dharmada. This charge is over and above the commission which a commission agent is entitled to receive from both the parties. Dharmada so collected is a customary levy which is realised and credited by the commission agent in a separate account known as dharmada account. This amount is held by them on trust to be utilised specifically and exclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All516
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Life Insurance Corporation of India seeks that the orders dated 12th of June, 1970, passed by the State Government, dated 19th of November, 1969, passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad and the Government Order No. 6324E/XXXVIS-202-63 dated 3rd December, 1965 be quashed.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to two petitions are that the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India is a tenant in premises No. 40, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad at monthly rent of Rs. 333.67 and is carrying on the Life Insurance business therein. Respondent No. 5, Sri K. S. Gandhi, is the landlord. The plot of land on which premises No. 40, Mahatma Gandhi Marg stands was held on lease by Sri K. S. Gandhi. Period of that lease has since expired. The State Government issued Government Order No. 6324-H/XXXVII-202-63, dated 3rd of December, 1965 laying down the principles for renewal of such leases. It provided...
Tag this Judgment!