Allahabad Court November 1978 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, Sales Tax Vs. Sada Nand Arya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC396(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has come up by way of this reference for opinion on the two questions hereinafter set out:(1) Whether Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, as amended by Amendment Act No. 103 of 1976, validates all the past assessments and reassessments made against the unregistered dealer effecting sales under Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act ?(2) If answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the learned additional revising authority was justified to confirm the appellate order dated 1st July, 1975, for the year 1970-71 ?2. The assessee is a dealer in coal. It used to place orders with collieries in the States of Bengal and Bihar. While the goods were in transit it endorsed the railway receipts in favour of a third party, who took delivery of the goods in the State of U. P. The assessee is an unregistered dealer. The dispute is as to whether the assessee could be taxed by the sales tax authorities in U. P. or in the State where...
Jaina Talkies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR970(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. It had to pay a sum of Rs. 16,486 as employees' contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, for the period 1962 to December, 1970. It claimed this amount as an allowable expense in the assessment year 1972-73 for which the financial year 1971-72 was the accounting period.2. It appears that on 17th August, 1965, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order requiring the assessee to pay the provident fund contribution of its employees for the period from February, 1962, to February, 1964. The assessee did not accept this liability. It filed a civil suit and subsequently a writ petition in this court. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the assessee was employing more than 20 persons in its firm and was hence liable to pay the employees' contribution. The first appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. The assessee then filed a second appeal in this court, which was also dismissed on October 26...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandra Agro P. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR251(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. Its main business is taking house property on lease, repairing, altering and remodelling it and then letting it out to tenants. During the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the assessee claimed depreciation on the capital expenditure for improving the buildings. The expenditure was claimed for construction of partition walls, fitting tiles in some portions of the buildings and in converting some portions of the floor of the building into mosaic floors. The claim of the assessee for depreciation of this expenditure was repelled by the ITO. He took the view that the improvement effected continued to vest and belong to the lessor. The assessee only had a right to use them for the duration of the lease. Since the assessee was not the owner, it was not entitled to claim depreciation on the capital expenditure so incurred by it. 2. The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that though the bui...
Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(All)257; [1979]117ITR344(All); [1979]1TAXMAN125(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a private limited company and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. It had acquired on rent an area of 96 acres, on which it built its factory, etc. In the assessment year 1970-71, it claimed an expense of Rs. 77,000 by way of rent payable for the 96 acres of land and taxes. In support of the claim itrelied upon an award dated 5th March, 1969, under which the company agreed to pay Rs. 77,000 to the owners on account of rent for the last 10 years at the rate of Rs. 50 per bigha for 96 acres of land held by the company. The ITO repelled this claim. On appeal, the same was accepted by the AAC. The revenue went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee was maintaining its accounts on mercantile system. The liability to pay rent accrued year to year. The fact that the assessee paid rent for the last 10 years in a lump sum during the current year was irrelevant. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee has not discl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Duli Singh and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(All)234; [1979]117ITR254(All); [1979]1TAXMAN32(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law referred for our opinion is :'Whether the Income-tax Officer was not justified in refusing to continue registration in view of the provisions of Section 186(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessee, which is a partnership firm, was granted registration in the year 1965-66. The registration was continuously renewed till 1968-69. For the year 1969-70 it had, within the prescribed time, filed the requisite declaration in Form No. 12. The assessee filed a return of its income. Unfortunately, the assessee could not appear before the ITO to support its return of income. The ITO passed an exparte assessment order under Section 144 of the Act. As the assessee had not appeared, he refused registration to the firm.3. The assessee felt aggrieved and went up in appeal against the order refusing registration to the firm under Section 186(2) of the Act. The AAC set aside the order of the ITO. He held that the firm was entitled to registration. Firstl...
Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR398(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. It carries on business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the assessment year 1965-66, it claimed a deduction of Rs. 16,181 and for the assessment year 1966-67 a sum of Rs. 3,017 on the ground that these sums represented loss suffered by the assessee in selling some of its securities. The ITO disallowed the claim on the finding that the securities were an investment and were not part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee. This view was upheld in appeal by the AAC as well as by the Tribunal.2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the followingquestion of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss on sale of securities amounting to Rs. 16,181 and Rs. 3,017 for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 were capital loss and hence not allowable as a revenue deduction ?'3. It is not disputed that the assessee was not a dealer in securities. At the beginn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›