Allahabad Court August 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.
Krishna Nand Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)179; [1983]139ITR756(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The applicant-HUF filed returns under the W.T. Act for the years 1965-66 to 1973-74 on July 8, 1974. The net wealth returns were accepted by an assessment order dated July 27, 1974. The WTO, Kanpur, after accepting the returns, assessed the wealth-tax. The tax demanded was paid in due course,2. The WTO under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act can impose penalties for the delayed filing of returns. After hearing the assessee, he imposed penalties for various years as follows :Asst. yearPenaltyimposedRs.1965-661,69,4971966-671,86,5851967-681,84,3581968-691,87,3381969-701,87,5211970-711,47,7561971-721,01,0181972-7374,4111973-7428,691 Total12,67,175 3. The assessee made an application which was treated to be under Section 18B of the W.T. Act, The Commissioner dismissed that application by an order dated January 21, 1978. He refused to waive the penalty on the ground that the assessee was not making a full and true disclosure of his assets. He held that although the as...
income-tax Officer Vs. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR594(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is a firm. It carries on the business of brick-klin. For the assessment year 1970-71, it was granted registration under the I.T. Act. For the next year, namely, 1971-72, it filed the declaration in Form No. 12, for renewal of registration on 7th August, 1971. The previous year ended on 10th June, 1961. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the delay of one month and six days on the ground that it was under the bona fide impression that the declaration could be filed along with the return. The ITO held that ignorance of law was no excuse. He refused to condone the delay. He treated the assessee as an unregistered firm and assessed it in that status. 2. On appeal, it was held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay. It should have been condoned. The status of the firm was taken as that of a registered firm. 3. The ITO went up to the Tribunal on the question of status of the assessee. On behalf of the revenue, it was su...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Subash Mill Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC76(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The additional revising authority has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether 'pumping sets' are liable to tax as machinery in view of the retrospective amendment of item No. 52 of the First Schedule to the U. P. Sale Tax Act by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act of 1974 ?(2) Whether stone 'chakki ka patthar' and 'rubber beltings' are covered by the term 'mill stores and hardwares' and are taxable as such under the years in question ?2. So far as the first question is concerned, in S. T. R. No. 478 of 1977 (decided by me today) (Sterling Machine Tools v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. [1979] 43 S.T.C. 72), it has been held that 'pumping sets' are liable to tax 'as machinery parts'. The question is disposed of accordingly.3. The second question relates to the taxability of stone 'chakki ka patthar' and 'rubber beltings'. The category of items comprised within the term 'mill stores and hardwares' were considered on a number of ...
Sterling Machine Tools Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC72(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra Range, Agra, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :Whether diesel engines and pump sets are liable to be taxed as agricultural implements or machinery parts ?2. The assessee manufactures diesel engines and assembles pumping sets by coupling pumps with diesel engines. The pumps are purchased by the assessee and not manufactured by it. The assessee sells diesel engines as such and also diesel engines coupled with pumps. Turnover in respect of the sale of diesel engines and pumping sets have been assessed in the hands of the assessee at the rate of 6 per cent. The assessee's contentions that both diesel engines and pumping sets sold by it were agricultural implements and, as such, not liable to be taxed under entry No. 52 of the First Schedule, have been negatived.3. The question raised is as to whether diesel engines and pumping sets sold by the assessee are agricultural implements or...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Krishna Chemicals
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC216(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Judge (Revisions) holding that salt petre was not a chemical and should be taxed as an unclassified item.2. The assessee dealt in haldi, salt petre and phenyl, etc. The turnover of salt petre, which was to the tune of Rs. 18,977.14, was taxed by the Sales Tax Officer at the rate applicable to chemicals. This was by recourse to Notification No. ST-8301-1/X-1008-64 dated 1st April, 1966, the relevant part of which was to the following effect:Chemicals of all kinds including fuel gases such as Burshane and Indane but excluding soda-ash and caustic soda.3. On an appeal being filed, the appellate authority held that salt petre was nothing else but sabji khar or kalmi sora and was not chemical and as such should be taxed as an unclassified item. The decision of the appellate authority was upheld in revision.4. There is ample authority to the effect that the word 'chemical' as occurring in this notification has to be interp...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jokhi Ram Bhagwan Das.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)211
1. JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, CJ - The question of law referred for our opinion is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the renewal or registration. The question relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. On December, 1958, the Income Tax Officer issued notice u/s 22(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, requiring the assessee to produce the account books which had been signed by the Inspector of Survey Squad on July 26, 1957. A similar notice was given for the assessment year 1958-59, as well. Inspite of service of these notices, the assessee did not produce the books of account. It put forward an explanation that the books had been lost in transit. The explanation was disbelieved. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessment u/s 23(4) to the best of his judgment. At the end of the order, he stated. "Renewal of registration has been refused as the assessment has been completed u/s 23(4)". For the year 1958-59, he made the follo...
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kishore Chand Shiv Charanlal ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: (1979)8CTR(All)209
1. JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, C.J. - The assessee is a registered firm. It carries on the business of supply of electricity to the town of Budaun. It is governed by the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Act No. 54 of the 1948). It claimed depreciation allowance on the service connections valued at Rs. 1,02,776/- as on April, 1962. The Income Tax Officer repelled this claim on the ground that for the year 1964-65, the Act of 1961 was applicable. In terms of s. 43(1) read with s. 43(6)(b), written down value of the assets would be the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. The assessee had admittedly recovered a sum of Rs. 1,44,157/- upto March 3, 1962 in respect of service connections. Since these recoveries exceeded the written down value as on April 1, 1962, on amount was deductible towards depreciation. 2. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as th...
Sundar Lal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR316(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee is an individual. He became a partner of the firm, Messrs, Saraswati Udyog, which was constituted in Diwali, 1968. His share in the firm was 27%. On November 7, 1968, he gave 11 engines and some other spare parts to the firm of the total value of Rs. 40,000. This was his capital contribution to the firm. He also gave a cash deposit of Rs. 6,000 to the firm on June 4, 1969. The ITO, while computing the income for the assessment year 1970-71, required the assessee to explain the source of these investments. He disbelieved the explanation offered by the assessee and included these two items in the assessable income.2. On appeal, it was held that the inclusion was justifiable only under Section 60. On merits, the explanation offered by the assessee was disbelieved and the inclusion was held justified. In the result, the appeal was dismissed. The assessee then went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Section 68 was applicable because the books of t...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.K. Misra, Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR342(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. The assessee was an ITO. During the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1972-73, he was posted at Kanpur. He received Rs. 531 by way of city compensatory allowance because he was posted at Kanpur. He claimed this amount to be exempt from income-tax. The ITO concerned, however, did not accept it. The assessee appealed. The AAC upheld the contention that this allowance was given to compensate against extra cost of living in big cities. It was an allowable deduction under Section 10(14) of the I.T. Act as well as tinder Section 16(v) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed this view. It held that the allowance was granted to meet personal expenditure necessitated by the special circumstances in which the duty was performed. This allowance was not a perquisite attached to the post but was a special allowance granted to officers posted at specified places. It was hence exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act.2. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Tribunal has...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Padampat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)9CTR(All)56; [1979]117ITR443(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J.1. These Wealth-tax References relate to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. They arise under the W.T. Act. The question of law referred for our opinion is :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in accepting the assessee's statement on valuation of certain unquoted shares ?'2. The assessee owns shares in certain companies. These were unquoted shares. The assessee declared their value at a figure which was worked out by calculating the break-up value as well as the average value and taking their mean to be the proper value. The assessee further contended that this was the method adopted by it for valuing these very shares in the assessment years 1961-62 to 1966-67 and the same can be applied for the years in question. The WTO differed. He relied on Rule 1D of the W.T. Rules and calculated the value of the shares according to the method prescribed in that rule.3. The assessee went up in appeal and succeeded. The AAC upheld the objection of the assessee and the val...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »