Allahabad Court December 1974 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.
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.N. Bhagi and Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR359(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. On 28th April, 1965, the assessee purchased a half share in a cinema building for Rs. 46,496. The sale consideration was paid in cash to the extent of Rs. 10,000 and the balance of Rs. 36,496 was paid in the form of evacuee compensation claims. These claims had been purchased by the assessee in the open market for Rs. 25,555. The Income-tax Officer brought the difference between the purchase and the sale price of these claims to tax as income from business of dealing in evacuee compensation claims. He held that the assessee did not purchase these claims as capital investment, but with a view to sell them for profit. The transaction represents an adventure in the nature of trade and hence the profit was liable to be taxed as business profit. This view was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal. The assessee went up to theTribunal. The Tribunal held that the intention of the assessee in buying these claims was to purchase a building for his own u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rameshwardas Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1974
Reported in: [1977]107ITR710(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. For the assessment year 1951-52 the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Meerut, by his order dated May 1, 1964, imposed upon the assessee a penalty of Rs. 15,000 under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The order stated that the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for imposing the penalty had been obtained, but on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was established that the Income-tax Officer sent his letter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner seeking his approval after the order of penalty was passed. It was held that the order imposing penalty on the assessee was without jurisdiction because it was, in fact, passed without the requisite approval. At the end of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was further observed that 'the Income-tax Officer should take such action according to law as he deems necessary in this case '.2. The assessee felt aggrieved at this direction and filed an appeal b...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. Babu Ram Ajit Prasad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1974
Reported in: [1977]106ITR818(All)
SATISH CHANDRA J. - For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 3,282. The Income-tax officer rejected the books of account and estimated the assessees income by applying a flat rate, at Rs. 39,344. He also disallowed certain expenses and took into account a cash credit which was surrendered by the assessee.On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the assessable income to Rs. 35,917.Subsequently, penalty proceedings were drawn up and ultimately the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,700. On appeal, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order. It was found that on facts the Explanation to section 271(1) was not attracted.At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law of the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in canceling the order of penalty made by the Inspecting Assistant Commis...
Deep Chandra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1974
Reported in: [1977]107ITR716(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. The assessee, Deep Chandra & Co., is a registered partnership firm consisting of five partners, viz., Deep Chandra, Amba Prasad, Parmeshwari Dass, Hardwari Lal and Shambhu Dayal. The partnership agreement was entered into on the 8th April, 1944. The relevant facts are as follows :Deep Chandra was a big zamindar, who owned considerable agricultural lands in Muzaffarnagar. One Sajjad Ali Khan, who was another big zamindar of Muzaffarnagar, entered into an agreement to sell his zamindari property comprised in Khewat 4/1 of Mohd. Rustam Ali Khan, village Yusufpur, Pargana and Tahsil Muzaffarnagar with Deep Chandra. Sajjad Ali Khan subsequently refused to execute a sale deed in pursuance of the said agreement. Consequently, Deep Chandra filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to enforce the same. The suit was, however, dismissed by the civil'judge in April, 1943. Deep Chandra preferred an appeal against this decree of the civil judge in this court.2. During...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›