Allahabad Court March 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. Shyamlal Motilal Khurja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: [1981]129ITR291(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. By this reference made under Sub-section (2) of s, 256 of the I.T. Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in annulling the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66 ' 2. The assessment of M/s. Shyam Lal Moti Lal was being made from the assessment year 1925-26 in the status of an HUF consisting of Shyam Lal and Gulshan Lal, sons of Moti Lal, up to 1947, and from 1947 to 1954 consisting of Shyam Lal and his children and widow as well as the children of Gulshan Lal. It appears that at the time of filing the return for the assessment year 1955-56, the members took a plea of partition in the family. This claim of partition was turned down on the ground that it had not been made by metes and bounds. Thereafter, no claim for partition was made by the assessee before the income-tax au...
Rajpal Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR436(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. Messrs. Rajpal Automobiles, Pratapgarh, is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1968-69, the firm submitted a return declaring a total income of Rs. 23,882. After making enquiries, the ITO completed the assessment by holding that the total income earned by the assessee in the year in question was Rs. 34,119. The difference between the returned and the assessed total income arose out of the two figures. One of them was Rs. 8,283 earned by the assessee as profit from the sale of a truck belonging to it. Under Section 41(2) of the I. T. Act, the income earned was to be shown in the return as the same was liable to be assessed to tax. Admittedly, the assessee did not mention this amount either in the returned income or in the column provided for the said purpose. The ITO having found that the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) were applicable to the facts of the present case issued a notice to the assessee and thereafter referred the case under Sect...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: [1988]115ITR449(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. The assessee is a limited company doing business in banking. The assessment years in question are 1969-70 and 1970-71 and the corresponding previous years are the years ending on 31st December, 1968, and 31st December, 1969.2. It appears that by the assessment order passed on 28th December, 1970, in respect of the year 1969-70, the ITO found that the gross tax payable by the assessee was Rs. 1,05,402. Out of this amount, Rs. 91,576 had been deducted at source, while the assessee had paid advance tax in the sum of Rs. 58,882. The asesssment order in respect of the year 1970-71 was passed by the ITO on 22nd February, 1971, determining the gross tax payable by the petitioner to be Rs. 75,444. Out of this amount, Rs. 91,035 had been deducted at source and Rs. 46,519 had been deposited by the assessee by way of advance tax. The ITO did not grant any interest on the amounts which had been deposited by the assessee over and above the amounts found due from the assessee on t...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)293
BY THE COURTSatish Chandra, C.J. - For the assessment year 1961-62 the question arose whether the assessee-co-operative society was exempt from tax under section 14(3)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This question arose because the assessee-society used to advance money to its member-co-operative societies to enable them tp buy and sell basic thins to their consumer-members. This raised the point whether this activity constituted an investment on the part of the assessee-society within the meaning of S. 14(3)(iii) of the Act. The matter ultimately came to this Court and a Bench in M/s. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, held that the word investment as occurring in S. 14(3)(iii) has not been defined in the Act. All that the section requires is that the interest or dividend should be derived from investment. The word investment is a word of very wide import, and cannot be confined only to securities or to investment or banking business. A capital ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Friends Straw Board and Paper Mar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)286
K. C. Agrawal, J. - By the assessment order dated 28th January, 1971 the Income Tax Officer added Rs. 24,712/- on the ground that the payment of the aforesaid amount was made with respect to certain purchases by the assessee from M/s. Meerut Straw Board Mills, Agra, in cash and as the assessee could not make the payment in cash, as provided by S. 40-A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the same could not be recognised. The assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority accepted the appeal and deleted the addition. The matter was, thereafter, taken up by the Income Tax Officer to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, and the findings given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were endorsed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the Revenue filed an application under sub-S. (1) of S. 256 of the Income Tax Act for referring the case to this Court. As the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was satisfied that th...
Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: [1980]126ITR146(All)
Sathish Chandra, C.J.1. The question of law referred for our opinion is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of profit of the assessee from M/s. Gajadhar Prasad Narain Das could be included in his total income for rate purposes even though the same had been assessed in the hands of his father under Section 64(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question relates to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The question itself gives an indication of necessary and material facts. It was hence not necessary to recite them in detail because the question of law is covered by a decision of this court in Arun Kumar Sarraf v. CIT : [1976]104ITR90(All) . Inthat case, it was held that income could be included in the total income of the assessee for rate purposes only under Section 66. Under Section 66 only such income on which no income-tax is payable can be included in the total income of the assessee. Hence, the income of a minor assessee which has been assessed in the hands ...
Mewa Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR598(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed his return beyond time. The ITO assessed his income at Rs. 31,500. He also levied interest under Section 139(1) for filing the return beyond time. The AAC confirmed this order. Before the AAC, no arguments were advanced against the levy of interest. The assessee went up to the Tribunal which held that the income from undisclosed sources was liable to be fixed at Rs. 10,000. In regard to the levy of interest, the Tribunal held that this part of the assessment order was not appealable in view of a decision of this court in Vidyapat Singhania v. CIT : [1977]107ITR533(All) .2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred for our opinion the question whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that levy of interest under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was not appealable.3. The decision in Vidyapat Singhania's case : [1977]107ITR533(All) is directly in point. It was held there that no appeal lie...
Mahabir Rice and Dal Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR557(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee is a registered partnership firm. One of the partners, Sri Ujagarmal, died on 14th March, 1967. On that date two other partners retired. The books of accounts were closed on 14th March, 1967. Profits up to that period were divided amongst the various partners. With effect from 15th March, 1967, under a fresh partnership deed the firm continued with three continuing partners and three fresh persons. A minor was also admitted to its benefits.2. The assessee filed two returns of income, (i) for the period 2nd December, 1966, to 14th March, 1967, and (ii) for the period 15th March, 1967, to 24th October, 1967. The ITO held that the change in the constitution of the firm did not entail the coming into existence of a different legal entity. He assessed the firm for the entire period, 2nd December, 1966, to 24th October, 1967. This view was affirmed in appeal as well as in further appeal by the Tribunal...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Radhey Shyam.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)288
K. C. Agrawal, J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income tax, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :-'Whether after the Assessee voluntarily filed a revised return under S. 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty is imposable under S. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis that the Assessee furnished inaccurate particulars in the original return' 2. The relevant years in respect of which this question has been referred, are the A.Yrs. 1965-66 to 1967-68. The Assessee is a partner in the two firms called Messrs. Radhey Shyam Babu Ram and Messrs. Radhey Shyam Baijnath Prasad. The Assessee filed a return for the year 1965-66 on October 13, 1965. He thereafter filed a revised return in respect of this year on December 21, 1968. In this revised return, the net income shown by the Assessee was more than what was previously indicated in the original return filed on October 13, 1965. The same thing happened with respect to ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Laxmi Nigam.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(All)279
K. C. Agrawal, J. - The question of law referred for our opinion in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from half share of the house property named Kiran Kunj should not be included in the income of the Assessee under Section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The relevant facts are these. The assessee is an individual and the proceedings involved in the present case are with respect to the Assessment Years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The Assessee filed returns in respect of these years and disclosed that half of the income from house property known as 'Kiran Kunj' belonged to her whereas the remaining half income of the same was that of her minor sons, Aditya Mohan Nigam and Rajendra Kumar Nigam. The Income Tax Officer accepted the claim of the Assessee. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax found that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »