Allahabad Court March 1978 Judgments
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brij Nandan Prasad Deen Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR959(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It carries on business of money-lending and pawning. It derives income from the sale of ornaments which are not redeemed, though pawned or pledged. For the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 14,890 and Rs. 17,175, respectively. The assessments were completed on an income of Rs. 23,060 and Rs. 31,251, respectively. The difference in the returned and the assessed income being more than 20%, the IAC drew up proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The IAC, after hearing the assessee, held that the assessee had failed to prove that the difference did not arise out of any gross or wilful neglect on its part. A penalty of Rs. 10,500 and Rs. 14,000 was imposed for the two assessment years. The assessee went up to the Tribunal in appeal.2. It was argued that this was a case of mere estimate. The profit rate on the sale of ornaments was estimated by the IT...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1988]114ITR682(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. On February 8, 1960, the assessee, Bhagwati Prasad, his brother, Mata Prasad, his wife and his mother jointly purchased 9 bighas 19 biswas and 8 dhoors of land along with a building, situate in village Tulsipur Mahmoorganj, District Varanasi, for a sum of Rs. 84,061. Subsequently, by two sale deeds dated June 8 and 9, 1966, a total area of 2 bighas 9 biswas and 2 dhoors was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 60,000. For the assessment year 1967-68, the income-tax Officer estimated the original cost of the land sold at Rs. 15,000 and worked outthe profit at Rs. 45,000. The assessee's one-fourth share was computed at Rs. 11,250 and this was added to the income of the assessee.2. The assessee appealed. He attacked the finding that the transaction of purchase and sale of land represented an adventure in the nature of trade. It was stressed that it was a solitary transaction and the assessee was not carrying on the business of buying and selling land. The firm of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Dhingra and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC268(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This reference arises out of assessment proceedings for the year 1968-69. The assessee deals in sale of trestles (tressels) which are used as a stand for resting guns. The assessing authority taxed the turnover of the dealer at the rate of six per cent which was the rate of tax on sales of furniture. The assessee appealed. The appellate authority treated trestles as an unclassified item and not as an article of furniture, and reduced the tax to 2 per cent which was the tax payable on sales of unclassified items. The appellate authority held that the trestles were not articles of furniture. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision but it was dismissed. The additional revising authority confirmed the finding of the appellate court.2. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed an application under Section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for reference. The application was allowed and the additional revising authority has referred the following question of law to this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Ram Das Kesharwani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC442(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions for our opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ex parte assessment framed for the year 1964-65 on 25th March, 1969, was barred by limitation, as held by the learned additional revising authority on the ground that the notice of hearing was served on 2nd April, 1969, z. e., after the expiry of four years from the end of the year 1964-65 ?(2) Whether service of notice is a condition precedent for an assessment under Section 7(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act ?(3) If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, was the additional revising authority justified in upholding the annulment of the assessment for the year 1964-65?2. The facts relevant to the question may be shortly stated. The assessment year in question is the year 1964-65. A notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer (sic) on 22nd March, 1969, fixing 26th March, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby Novelties Glass House Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)314
R. R. Rastogi, J. - The assessee is a manufacturer of glasswares. For the assessment year 1961-62, gross sales were shown at Rs. 5,24,911.39 inclusive of U.P. sales amounting to Rs. 1,67,645.61. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the disclosed sales and estimated U.P. sales at Rs. 2,40,000.00. The reasons given by the Sales Tax Officer for rejecting the disclosed version were that the purchases were not fully vouched, that in the returns there was a difference of Rs. 2,799/- in gross sales and Rs. 60/- in net sales when compared with the figures disclosed in the accounts at the time of assessment; that soda ash consumption was shown at 14 seers as against the standard consumption of 16 seers and consumption of coal was shown at 3 manunds 11 seers as against the standard consumption of 2 manuds 22 seers. The reason given was that 2 tons and 10 Cwts soda ash purchased on 8-4-1961 was not entered in the stock register or in the Rokar. When the matter came in appeal before the Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow Vs. Bhagawati Prasad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR682(All)
SATISH CHANDRA C.J. - On February 8, 1960, the assessee, Bhagawati Prasad, his brother, Mamta Prasad, his wife, and his mother jointly purchased 9 bighas 19 biswas and 8 dhoors of land along with a building situate in a village Tulsipur Mahmoorganj, District Varanasi, for a sum of Rs. 84,061. Subsequently, by two sale deeds dated June 8 and 9, 1966, a total area of 2 Bighas 9 biswas and 2 biswas was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 60,000. For the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer estimated the origional cost of the land sold at Rs. 15,000 and worked out the profit at Rs. 45,000. The assessees one-fourth share was computed at Rs. 11,250 and this was added to the income of the assessee.The assessee appealed. He attacked the finding that the transaction of purchase and sale of land represented an adventure in the nature of trade. It was stressed that it was a solitary transaction and the assessee was not carrying on the business of buying and selling land. The firm of ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Motor Transport Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1988]114ITR677(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee carries on business in road transport. On 31st March, 1970, it transferred a sum of Rs. 24,869 to its profit and loss account. This sum represented two items : Rs. 8,672, represented credits in the unclaimed wages account and Rs. 16,197, stood to the credit of certain persons who had business dealings with the assessee. These persons had not come forward to demand payment of the amounts due to them and consequently their accounts were debited and correspondingly the profit and loss account of the assessee was credited. This was done on 31st March, 1970, which fell in the assessment year 1970-71. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had credited the above amounts to the profit and loss account when they remained unclaimed for a number of years and there was no hope of these being claimed. The assessee has itself claimed the sums as its income. Hence, the same is liable to tax. He included the sum of Rs. 24,869 to the income of the assessee.2...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Textiles Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench c and a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR680(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 12th November, 1975, was fixed for its hearing. When the appeal was called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal chose to proceed on with the hearing. It heard the departmental representative and disposed of the appeal on merits.2. After the hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal received a telegram purporting to be from the petitioner praying for an adjournment on the ground of illness of the assessee's accountant. On that date, the Tribunal passed an order stating: 'Received after hearing. Somebody should have appeared in court. Rejected.' The petitioner then made an application for setting aside the order under the inherent powers of the Tribunal. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on April 2, 1976. It held that though the appeal was heard by the Tribunal on 12th November, 1975, yet it passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Baboo Lal Roop Kishore.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)456
Satish Chandra, C.J. - The Tribunal has solicited our opinion on three questions of law. Question No. 1 has been referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax who has applied for it u/s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. But questions No. 2 and 3 have been referred at the instance of the assessee. The assessee had made no application for reference under S. 256(1) of the Act. It appears that at the hearing of the application moved by the Department, learned counsel for the assessee also proposed two questions which have been referred to us as question Nos. 2 and 3. In view of the decision in Messrs U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd., Lucknow vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow, decided on March 14, 1978, it is not open to the Tribunal to refer questions at the instance of the party who had not made an application under S. 256(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, question Nos. 2 and 3 are returned unanswered.2. In relation to the first question, the positio...
Tag this Judgment!indraj Vs. Smt. Shanti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978All279
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Thisapplication was contested by the respondents and was dismissed by the Second Civil Judge, Meerut. Against that decree a First Appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Meerut. The appeal has been dismissed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Meerut on 23-11-1977. Aggrieved by these decrees the appellant has preferred a second appeal in this Court, The appeal was presented before the Stamp Reporter on 14th March, 1978, and was returned to counsel for the appellant with a report that it was beyond time by fifty-nine days. It appears that the limitation for filing the second appeal has been computed by the Stamp Reporter on the basis that it was thirty days from the date of the decree appealed against in view of Sub-s. (4) of Section 28 of the Act. The appeal was presented before the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »