Allahabad Court December 1979 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sheela Devi Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(All)127; [1981]132ITR517(All)
Rastogi, J.1. This reference under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, hereafter referred to as ' the Act' relates to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70. The respondent-assessee, an individual, was, inter alia, assessed to wealth-tax on the value of the jewellery amounting to Rs. 60,000, Rs. 62,000, Rs. 64,000, Rs. 66,000 and Rs. 70,000 for the aforesaid years, respectively, by the WTO, after repelling her; contention that the jewellery was not liable to tax since the jewellery being for her personal use was exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. The AAC, on appeals against those orders, following the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna : [1970]77ITR505(SC) , accepted the assessee's contention and directed the exclusion of the aforesaid value of jewellery.2. By Section 32 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, Section 5(1)(viii) of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from April 1, 1963, and the words 'but not including jewellery' were inserted a...
Premier Colonisers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1979
Reported in: [1981]132ITR514(All)
Rastogi, J.1. The assessee, a partnership firm, carries on business in real estate and colonisation. For the assessment year 1972-73, the previous year ended December 31, 1971, the assessee claimed deduction of asum of Rs. 27,751 being interest paid on certain borrowings. The assessee's sister concern, M/s. Premier Enamel Works, had taken some loans amounting to over Rs. 3 lakhs. The assessee took over the liability to pay those loans and for that purpose necessary book entries were made by it in its accounts. It was in respect of those loans that the assessee claimed deduction of the aforesaid amount as interest paid to the creditors. The ITO did not accept the assessee's claim for which the main reason given was that the assessee itself had not utilized the borrowed capital in its business and as such the payment of interest being on behalf of a different person could not be treated as incidental to the carrying on of its business. The same view was taken on appeals by the AAC and th...
Vishwanath Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)252; [1980]123ITR29(All); [1980]46STC486(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally right in confirming the disallowance of the payment of sales tax of Rs. 14,036 pertaining to earlier years ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the commission paid to three employees on the net profit of the firm was not allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Act?' 2. The assessee, a registered firm, was carrying on business of sarrafa and cold storage. It filed its return for the assessment year 1968-69 showing a loss of Rs. 26,765. The ITO found on scrutiny of the accounts that a sum of Rs. 14,036 had been debited in the accounts by way of sales tax but that liability did not pertain to the assessment year in question. Apart from this, under the head ' Remuneration and salary', the assessee debited an am...
Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif Vs. Jhansi Bidi Mazdoor Union and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ283All
Yashoda Nandan, J.1. By means of a notification dated 28th November, 1972 the State Government under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following two disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, respondent No. 2;(1) Kya Sevayojkon Dwara parishist 'ka' me ullikhit shramikon ko arthik varsh 1970-71 ka bonus bhugtan na kiya jana uchit tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi to, we kis dar evam anya kis vibran sahit bonus pane ke (2) Kya sevayoikon dawara parshist' kha' me ullikhit shramikon ko 1970-71 ka vibhinna daron par bonus vitarit karna uchit tatha Vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit sabhi shramik kis dar se bonus pane ke adhikari hain evam anya kis vivran sahit?2. Written statements were exchanged between the employer, the petitioner, and the union representing the workmen concerned which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 to the writ petition. The validity of the reference was challenged by the employer on the ground that by reason of Section 39 o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›