Allahabad Court December 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.
Hargu Charan Srivastava Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR622(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee filed returns of income on 27th August, 1968, for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. On 14th August, 1969, he filed revised returns for all the aforesaid years, except for the year 1966-67. The income in the original as well as in the revised returns was as follows:YearOriginalreturnRevisedreturnRs.Rs.1964-659,30414,3041965-669,91314,9321966-678,90315,4031967-6817,71520,7151968-6922,39724,3972. The ITO accepted the revised returns and passed the assessment orders on different dates of August, 1969, except for the year 1966-67, for which the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 16,903. In the assessment orders he recorded a finding that the assessee filed returns late and that he had not filed estimate of income under Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act. Hence, proceedings for levying the penalty were initiated.3. In due course a notice was issued to show cause why penalty under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Act be not imposed. The ass...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Kamta Press
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1984]56STC314(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The revising authority has referred .the following questions of law for opinion of this Court :-1. Whether the learned Additional Revising Authority was legally justified to hold on the basis of the material on record that the assessee was not liable to tax on the sale of printed material ?2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, then whether the Revising Authority was legally justified in setting aside the assessment orders ?2. The assessee ran a printing press in the assessment year 1968-69. It disclosed a net turnover of Rs. 79,294.14. The books of accounts were rejected, and the net turnover fixed at Rs. 80,000. The appeal filed by the dealer failed. The Revising Authority has held that the assessee carried on printing work for its customers, and received payment which was made up of charges for printing and costs of the paper. The paper used by the assessee was purchased locally, and not imported by him. On this finding he held that the assesse...
Krishna and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979All43; 1980CriLJ121
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. Four country liquor shops in the district of Meerut situate at Anaj Mandi, Delhi Road, Sabun Godam and Mohiuddinpur were auctioned on 29th March, 1978. The petitioners were the highest bidders, their bid being for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000. As would be shown later the location of the fourth shop was at Rethani and while holding the aforesaid auction it was shifted to Mohiuddinpur. By an order dated 19th April, 1978, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition, the Excise Commissioner required the District Magistrate, Meerut either to shift the Mohiuddinpur shop to a distance of 8 kms. from the border of Ghaziabad or to auction this group of shops afresh. This order states that the shop located at Rethani had without prior sanction been shifted to Mohiuddinpur and auctioned which was not in accordance with the rules. This could not be done without the concurrence of the District Magistrate of both the districts inasmuch as Mohiuddinpur was situate wit...
Prakash Khandsari Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: [1981]130ITR380(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The only question referred for our opinion is whether the assessee-firm was rightly treated as an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1969-70.2. Messrs. Prakash Khandsari Mills, the assessee-firm, carried on business under a deed of partnership dated June 19, 1963. The firm consisted of four partners. Each of them had a one-fourth share. Dal Singar Singh, one of the partners, died on October 1, 1968. The business was carried on under a deed of partnership dated April 2, 1969. According to this deed, the three erstwhile partners Joined with Surya Nath Singh as the incoming fourth partner. According to the partnership of April 2, 1969, each of the partners had a one-fourth share.3. The ITO refused continuance of registration to this firm on the finding that this was not a case of dissolution but of change in the constitution of the firm. Since a fresh deed of partnership was, not drawn up during the assessment year in question, the firm was not entitled to co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sohan Lal and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: [1981]130ITR914(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. M/s. Sohan Lal & Sons, the assessee, is a partnership firm. It consisted of four major partners and Mahesh Kumar (minor) was admitted to its benefits. In the assessment year 1967-68, the ITO found that this firm was carrying on business in three names, M/s. Agarwal Metal Stores, M/s. Agarwal Hardware Stores and M/s. Oudh Iron Stores. The firm was maintaining three sets of accounts for each of the aforesaid three businesses. He further found that Mahesh Kumar (minor) had been allocated his share of the loss suffered in the Agarwal Metal Stores business. The assessee explained that Agarwal Metal Stores was one of the businesses of the assessse-firm. There was enough profit in the other two businesses, namely, Oudh Iron Stores and Agarwal Hardware Stores, to cover the loss suffered in Agarwal Metal Stores and no loss had been allocated to Mahesh Kumar (minor). The ITO did not accept this explanation and found that the minor had been allocated a share in the loss. H...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Padampat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)41; [1979]117ITR323(All); [1979]1TAXMAN232(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. It appears that the assessee along with his two brothers advanced a sum of Rs. 2,84,763 to Sohanlal Singhania somewhere between 1941 and 1946. This money was advanced out of the secret profits of the assessee and his brothers, which were outside the books. The assessee and his brothers reached a settlement with the Central Board of Revenue on 17th January, 1957, as a result whereof each of the three brothers entered an amount of Rs. 94,921 in his books of account to the debit of Sohanlal Singhania. They continued to repeat this entry year after year. But in the year 1967-68, they wrote off this debt from their books. In the year 1967-68, the assessee did not show this debt in his return under the W.T. Act. On enquiry, the assessee stated that the debt had become bad and so it was written off. The WTO issued notices under s, 16 of the G.T. Act asking the assessee to show cause why the sum of Rs. 94,921 be not brought to books under Section 4(1)(c) of the G.T. Act....
L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR937(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee claimed an allowance on account of liability for gratuity payable to workmen. It was claimed that this was a statutory liability under Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with the Sugar Industries Workmen Gratuity Scheme. This claim was made before the ITO on account of the gratuity payable for the previous year and earlier years in terms of the Wage Board Award. The ITO repelled the claim because no details or materials were furnished by the company.In appeal this plea was not specifically urged before the AAC. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the assessee desired to raise this plea. It filed the actuarial valuation report dated February 25, 1973, and on that basis claimed an amount of Rs. 72,399 as deductible. The Tribunal, however, did not permit the assessee to raise this ground. It held that before the ITO claim was made on a vague basis and not on the basis of any actuarial report. Permitting this ground would mean examination o...
L.H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)268; [1979]118ITR985(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment year 1963-64, the Tribunal has referred the following five questions of law for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the payment of Rs. 1,49,884 on account of guarantee commission passed all the tests laid down in Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that entire claim of payment was allowable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material for the Tribunal to hold that the payment of commission on sale of sugar to the agents amounting to Rs. 1,81,104 was an admissible deduction ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,13,543 payable by the assessee-company as interest under Section 3(3) of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) or under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhav Dass.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)146
Satish Chandra, C.J.The question of law referred for our opinion is whether there was any material to support the finding that the assessee was not guilty of wilful default or gross negligence within the meaning of Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question relates to the assessment year 1964-65. Till the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee was a partner in the firm Messrs. Madhav Dass & Sons. The firm was dissolved. Then the assessee started the same as his proprietary business. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee filed a return of income of Rs. 17,854/-. The Income Tax Officer, inter alia, found that the revised Balance Sheet filed by the assessee showed an excess of assets over liabilities by Rs. 20,475/-. He included it as income from undisclosed sources. He ultimately assessed the income at Rs. 51,662/-. Finding that the returned income fell short of the assessed income by more than 80% he initiated penalty proceedings. Since the imposable pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›