Allahabad Court February 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.
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Virendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR923(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. The assessee, a retired Deputy Collector, owned certain lands. In February, 1959, the Bihar Government acquired an area of 23'7 acres belonging to the assessee. The compensation was determined at Rs. 86,070-92, including interest of Rs. 2,506'92 up to the end of August, 1959. This amount was paid to the assessee. The assessee felt dissatisfied. He made a reference to the District Judge, who gave an award on 12th January, 1962, determining the compensation payable to the assessee at Rs. 6,99,648.50. On appeal by the Bihar Government, the Patna High Court, by an order of 28th September, 1967, determined the compensation at Rs. 3,32,632.50. This was in addition to the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. On this additional amount the assessee was paid aninterest amounting to Rs. 1,68,176 which was actually paid on 16th December, 1967.2. The assessee filed returns for the years 1960-61 to 1968-69, spreading over the amount of interest in these various years. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Allahabad Dist. Co-operative Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR895(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The assessee is a bank. It derived income, inter alia, from banking business. 2. For the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,201, Rs. 3,272 and Rs. 2,814, respectively, on account of contribution to the employees' provident fund. The ITO rejected this claim, whose view was affirmed on appeal. The assessee then went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that though the assessee's claim may not be allowable under Section 36(1)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961, yet since the contribution was a statutory liability, it was in the nature of an expenditure made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and as such was allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. 3. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contribution made by the assessee to the employee's provident fund set up under Sect...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)255
Satish Chandra, J. - The assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessee debited an amount of Rs. 37,500/- as interest payable to Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. on the price of second hand milling plant purchased by it on a deferred payment basis. The Income Tax Officer held that interest due up to February, 1962 should have been capitalised. He accordingly capitalised it in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and added it back in the assessment for the year 1963-64. In appeal the view of the Department failed and the Tribunal upheld the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.2. Another question which is in dispute was an entry of Rs. 1,65,273/- being interest on the outstanding amount of cess and purchase tax due under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Cane Cess Act, 1956. The Tribunal held that this was an allowable deduction.3. At the instance of the Commissioner of the Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our opinion :-1. Wh...
Purshottam Das and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: [1981]128ITR745(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 6th November, 1965, the Collector issued notices to Brij Raman Das, Reoti Raman Das, Radha Raman Das, Smt. Kamal Mani Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi requiring them to file returns under the Agrl. I.T. Act for the years 1359 Fasli, 1360 Fasli, 1361 Fasli and 1363 Fasli. The year 1363 fasli ended on 31st July, 1956. These notices were issued because these individuals' agricultural income had escaped assessment. Section 25 of the Agrl. I.T. Act provides for such contingencies. Under it a notice could be issued within three years of the expiry of a particular year. Obviously these notices were beyond time. The Board, however, dismissed the revisions filed by these persons on the finding that the question of partition in their family was pending consideration in courts and, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the issuance of the notices on 6th November, 1965, were, in law, proceedings in continuation of the previous proceedings relating to partition in the family. At...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babu Ram Ram Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR410(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the asses-see could not be charged with the guilt of gross or wilful neglect and that penalty could not be levied under the Expln. to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant facts which led to the said reference lie in a narrow compass. The respondent is a firm dealing in preparation and sale of sweetmeats at Moradabad, For the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69, the firm submitted returns. The ITO found that the assessee disclosed a lower rate of gross profit. On this finding, the ITO applied a higher rate of gross profit whereby the income of the assessee had exceeded the limit specified in the Expln. to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereupon, the IAC issued a notice unde...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Commercial Traders
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: [1988]112ITR953(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. The question that has been referred in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration within the meaning of Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1966. Out of the nine partners mentioned in the deed, Smt. Saroj Gupta was a minor. She was admitted to the benefits of partnership with effect from the aforesaid date. She attained majority on May 10, 1966, that is, only after 40 days of her being admitted to the benefits of the partnership. On her attaining majority, no fresh deed was drawn up. She only expressed her desire to continue as a partner, as required by subsection (6) of Section 30 of the Partnership Act, by making an endorsement under her signatures. The endorsement made by her reads as under;' I have attained majority on 10th May, 1966, and I hereby give consent of becoming a partner in the partnership business style...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asanand Tikam Chand.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)252
Satish Chandra J. - The question of law referred for our opinion is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee firm was entitled to continuance of registration u/s. 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal was of the view that even if a minor attains majority, then, till he either gives notice of his election to become a partner or the expiry of six months from the date when he attains majority, there is no change in the constitution of the firm. This view has been accepted by this Court in C.I.T., Lucknow vs. National Medical Stores, Gorakhpur, and Addl. C.I.T., Lucknow vs. M/s. Ballabh Das Hari Das, Varansi. In view of these decisions, we uphold the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200/-....
Lalji and ors. Vs. Ramji Seth
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All212
S.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent Ramji Seth for specific performance of the contract of sale entered into on 2-12-1964 in respect of house No. K 46/167 situate in mohalla Hartinath, district Varanasi.2. On 2-12-1964 Lalji executed a registered deed in favour of the plaintiff respondent Ramji Seth agreeing to sell the property in dispute. By this deed the property agreed to be sold was also mortgaged in favour of Ramji Seth for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in case the plaintiff respondent did not obtain the sale deed for the disputed premises. The plaintiff respondent was willing to purchase the disputed premises but Lalji transferred the disputed premises to Suraj Prasad and Harihar Prasad defendants appellants Nos. 2 and 3 on 3rd April 1965. The defence of appellant No. 1 Lalji was to the effect that he did not execute the agreement for sale but had in fact executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rupees 1,...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Jagat Singh Lajja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC469(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J. 1. The assessee, M/s. Jagat Singh Lajja Ram, carries on the business of manufacture and sale of khandsari sugar. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee disclosed sales of sugar at Rs. 2,74,201, which had been made through commission agents and of molasses at Rs. 6,712, which he had made on his own. The Central excise duty had been paid on the sugar manufactured by the assessee and, hence, there being no liability for tax on the sales thereof, it was claimed that the turnover was below the minimum taxable limit. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer did not accept that contention. He estimated the sales of molasses at Rs. 28,000 and for determining the gross turnover included the sales of sugar as well. Tax was, however, imposed on sales of molasses only.2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and it was contended that sugar sold through commission agents should not have been included in the gross turnover and that the estimate ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Shyam Sunder.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)161
Satish Chandra, J. - For the four Assessment Years 1964-65 to 1967-68, the Assessee filed returns with delay. The Tribunal held that the Assessee was liable to penalty under S. 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act for this delay. It went on to hold that the taxable event was the date when the return was due and, the law as it stood on that date was applicable to compute the amount of penalty. If the law was changed subsequent to the date when the return was due, it will not be applicable while computing the amount of the penalty for delay in filing the return.2. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred this question for our opinion. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax Lucknow vs. Ram Narain Agrawal, a Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view which was taken by the Tribunal. We therefore answer the question referred to us in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. The Assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200/-....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »