Allahabad Court July 1978 Judgments
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR919(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. Messrs. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises (Private) Ltd., Kanpur, the assessee, suffered losses in the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. It, however, claimed development rebate in respect of plant and machinery installed in those years. The ITO repelled the claim on the view that the assessee had not debited the profit and loss account, nor created the development reserve. The Supreme Court decision in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT : [1970]77ITR512(SC) applied and no development rebate was allowable.2. On appeal, it was held that since there was no profit, development reserve could not be created, but the development rebate should have been calculated and allowed in a succeeding year in which the assessee earned profits and created the requisite reserve. The ITO was directed to determine the development rebate admissible to the assessee.3. The ITO appealed. The Tribunal affirmed the view of the AAC.4. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has refer...
Tag this Judgment!Marolia and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)170; [1981]129ITR475(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law for our opinion:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the departmental authorities were entitled to support the disallowance or addition on account of huge debits in the name of Shri Ram Deo Marolia on the ground that interest bearing loans were utilised by the assessee for non-business purposes which included withdrawals by Ram Deo Marolia also ? 2. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the disallowance of interest of Rs. 12,320, Rs. 12,060, Rs. 9,300, Rs. 8,760 and Rs. 10,560 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm with three partners. One of the partners of this firm was Ram Deo Marolia. The firm was carrying on business of cotton purchase on commission basis for various cotton mills situated...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Shah (P.) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)207; [1979]120ITR354(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. M/s. T. N. Shah, a partnership firm, consisting of thirteen partners carried on the business of exporting coal to Pakistan. On 3rd of November, 1966, the thirteen partners of this firm incorporated themselves as a private limited company known as Messrs. T. N. Shah (Private) Ltd., Agra. By an agreement dated 14th November, 1966, the private limited company took over the business of the erstwhile partnership firm as a going concern with all assets and liabilities. The thirteen erstwhile partners became shareholders of this newly floated private limited company.2. For the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, the company claimed deduction of Rs. 2,15,741, Rs. 6,539 and Rs. 1,02,058 on account of bad debts. There is no dispute that the transactions in which these amounts became bad debt related to export of coal to Pakistan and they were all taken into account in computing the income of the partnership firm in previous years.3. The ITO disallowed the claims...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)175; [1981]128ITR259(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. The assessee was a registered partnership firm of three partners. The assessment year under reference is 1967-68, the previous year for which was the Diwali year which ended on the 12th November, 1966. Under the provisions of the Indian I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Rules framed thereunder an assessee of the class of the petitioner was required to file the return for the assessment year 1967-68 by 30th June, 1967. However, by a Government notification time for filing the return was extended till 15th August, 1967. The assessee did not file any return. Thereafter, a notice was sent under Sub-section (2) of Section 139 of the Act. The assessee did not pay any heed even to the said notice and filed the return much after the expiry of the period of 30 days mentioned in the same. The ITO thereafter started proceedings for the levy of penalty. In response to a notice served under Section 274 of the Act, the assessee submitted an explanation...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sharda Electric Battery Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC371(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the Revising Authority, Varanasi, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :Whether the turnover of motor batteries was within the purview of the entry 'spare parts of motor vehicles' within the meaning of notification dated 1st October, 1958?2. Only such facts as are necessary for answering the question referred need be stated. The assessee manufactured and sold motor batteries and their parts in the year 1966-67. A dispute arose as to the rate of tax exigible on the sale of batteries. The Judge (Revisions), following the case of Jupiter Battery Works, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1972 U.P.T.C. 224, held that the appropriate rate applicable to the sale of batteries was six pies per rupee. By Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31st March, 1956, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under Section 3-A of the Act directed that certain goods set out in the notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR849(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Board of Revenue, in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, referred the following three questions for opinion :'1. Whether under section 17 of the Act, it is deliberate and conscious attempt at concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars which is liable to penalty or the penalty can be levied even in respect of accidental or clerical mistakes ? 2. Whether the assessee is absolved of the default contemplated by section 17, if he filed a revised return under section 15(4) of the Act before the assessment is made ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 10,000 has rightly been imposed upon the assessee ?' 2. For the year 1359F, the assessee filed his return on September 15, 1951. On October 21, 1951, a letter was received by the Naib Tahsildar for checking the books of the assessee which were duly filed. The Naib Tahsildar while checking the books found a number of omissions and inaccuracies in the regis...
Tag this Judgment!Hasan Mumtaz Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)204; [1979]116ITR573(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction dated 26th July, 1956, was in law a sale or a gift ?'2. The relevant facts are these :One Shiraj Hasan was an advocate, who used to practice, at Lucknow. He died in 1950. During his lifetime he accumulated a huge wealth. He deposited Rs. 26,000 free of interest with one Zamir Ahmad out of his savings from his professional income for purchasing a house at Bareilly. The instructions left by the deceased were that the house would be pur-chased in the name of Hasan Mumtaz, the assessee, who was minor at the time of the deposit of the money by the deceased, Shiraj Hasan, with Zamir Ahmad. After the death of Shiraj Hasan, Zamir Ahmad sold his own bungalow No. 204, Civil Lines, Bareilly, for a consideration of Rs. 26,000 which was lying in deposit with him in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Zeekoo Shoe Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)307; [1981]127ITR837(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This reference raises an interesting question in respect of the levy of penalty.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It carries on business in shoes. For the assessment 1968-69, the assessee filed a return of income on 31st October, 1968, disclosing an income of Rs. 65,691. The ITO included Rs. 71,834.95 as income from other sources in respect of credit balance existing in the assessee's account books in respect of six other firms. This addition was reduced on appeal. On further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the inclusion in relation to two cash credit items, namely :--(1) of Rs. 16,350 relating to Sri Ram Lal, leather merchant, Agra,(2) of Rs. 8,510 of Chimanlal, leather merchant, Agra.3. Thus, the inclusion as income from other sources was reduced from Rs. 71,834-95 to Rs. 24,860. The Tribunal also upheld the inclusion of Rs. 8,423 on account of bonus received by the assessee as a result of the devaluation of Indian currency. This receipt was held to be clearly ...
Tag this Judgment!Renusagar Power Company Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)10CTR(All)279; [1979]120ITR352(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. This writ petition challenges the notice dated 13th January, 1977, issued under Sections 154/155 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the ITO, Varanasi, stating that the petitioner-company's assessment in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 made on 25th January, 1973, requires to be amended as there is a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Sections 154/155 of the I.T. Act. It went on to state that the rectification of mistakes as per details given therein will have the effect of enhancing the assessment, etc., and if the petitioner wished to be heard, he was requested to appear on 22nd January, 1977. Annexed to the notice was a statement giving the nature of the mistakes proposed to be rectified. It contains as many as fifteen points on which the original assessment order needed rectification.2. The petitioner, instead of appearing before the ITO and satisfying him that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in respect of any of the poin...
Tag this Judgment!Renusagar Power Company Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward and Anr. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR719(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated March 12, 1976, issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and for a writ of mandamus directing the ITO, 'A' Ward, Circle I, Varanasi, not to proceed with the reassessment of the petitioner-company in pursuance of the said notice.2. The petitioner is a registered company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Renukoot, District Mirzapur. It is a subsidiary company of Messrs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd., Renukoot, District Mirzapur. The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation and supply of power. The petitioner filed three income-tax returns for the assessment year 1968-69, the corresponding financial year of which was 1st January, 1967, to 31st December, 1967. The first return was filed on 19th July, 1968, disclosing a loss of Rs. 6,36,43,978. The second return was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »