Allahabad Court March 1971 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banarsi Shah Charan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR494(All)
Pathak, J.1. As many as four questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court. They are as follows:'(1) Whether the provision for imposition of a penalty under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is of a penal nature? (2) Whether the onus of establishing the conditions requisite for the imposition of a penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act lies upon the revenue ? (3) Whether the conditions requisite for the imposition of a penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act should be established beyond reasonable doubt ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that none of the two conditions requisite for theimposition of a penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was satisfactorily established in either of the two years under reference?' 2. The assessment years under consideration are the years 1955-56 and 1957-58, the relevant previous yea...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.R. Sugar Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR858(All)
Pathak, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 15,300 spent on the construction of kachcha roads and one temporary culvert was revenue expenditure admissible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act '2. The assessee, who is the respondent before us, is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of sugar. In assessment proceedings for the year 1959-60, for which the relevant previous year ended on September 30, 1965, the assessee claimed the deduction of a sum of Rs. 15,300 spent on the construction of approach roads and a culvert. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the deduction on the ground that the expenditure was not verifiable and that it was of a capital nature. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, on appeal by the assessee, confirmed the finding of the Income-lax Officer. The assessee preferr...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. ShamshuddIn Ansari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1971All516
ORDERJ.M. Lal, J. 1. The only point that arises for decision in this revision is whether the suit out of which this revision has arisen falls under Sub-section (xi) (e) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act as amended in its application to this State or under Sub-section (v) (ii) of the said section. If the suit falls under the first provision, not only ad valorem court-fee would have to be paid according to the amount of one year's rent but its valuation for the purposes of determining The pecuniary jurisdiction of the court would also be the same in view of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. That valuation would admittedly be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif in whose court this suit was filed. If on the other hand the suit falls under the latter provision, it will have to be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. The market value of the property in respect of which relief for possession ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.L. Gupta and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR513(All)
Pathak, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 8,732 imposed on theassessee ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. The relevant assessment year is 1958-59. On April 23, 1962, the assessee filed a voluntary return of its income of the previous year. The Income-tax Officer observed that the return should have been filed by July, 1958, as provided in Section 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. The Income-tax Officer made an order levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but without success. He then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 271(1)(a) could not be invoked in the case because the new Act did not specifically declare that a default in complying with Section 22(1...
ishwar Das Kungoomal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR586(All)
Pathak, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to take proceedings under Section 33B and to pass an order under Section 33B 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33B was a valid and proper order ?' 2. The assessee-firm was assessed by the Income-tax Officer as an unregis-tered firm for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively. The Commissioner of Income-tax, having satisfied that the assessments made were prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that Section 23(5)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was attracted, purported to take proceedings under Section 33B of that Act to revise those orders. On August 6, 1962, he issued a notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the a...
Kaladhar Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1971
Reported in: [1971]82ITR713(All)
H.N. Seth, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, Sri Kaladhar Prasad Chaturvedi. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of interest standing to the credit of each minor son of the assessee in the said firm was rightly included in the Income of the assessee under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee, Kaladhar Prasad, is a partner in a firm known as Messrs. Kaladhar Prasad and Sons and his three minor sons, namely, Rakesh Kumar, UpdeshKumar and Lokesh Kumar, were admitted to its benefits. While making assessment for the year 1962-63, the Income-tax Officer included in the assessee's income, the share of profit of minor partners in the firm amounting to Rs. 4,736. This amount included an amount of Rs. 1,627 credited to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›