Allahabad Court July 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.
A.P.S. Cold Storage and Ice Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR709(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has, at the instance of the assessee, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the alleged loss of Rs. 30,000 ?'2. The assessee runs a cold storage, and in its return for the year 1966. 67, it had debited an amount of Rs. 30,000 as loss in its profit and loss account. The amount came to be debited by the assessee in the following circumstances. M/s. Sita Ram Sewa Ram had stored a large quantity of potatoes in its cold storage, which according to the assessee was damaged, because the party did not take delivery in time, with the result that they had to be disposed of for a nominal amount. A suit was filed by M/s. Sita Ram Sewa Ram against the assessee for damages amounting to Rs. 30,991. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the matter was referred to an arbitrator, who award...
NaraIn Swarup JaIn Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC471(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. On the facts found the only question that arises is whether imposition of penalty under Section 15-A(1)(b) based only on the finding in assessment proceedings can be upheld. For the assessment year 1965-66, the proceedings under Section 15-A(1)(b) were initiated as the assessee had concealed its turnover and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Against imposition of penalty the assessee filed an appeal which was allowed and the case was sent back for decision afresh. After remand fresh order imposing penalty was passed which was maintained in appeal although turnover was reduced. In revision it was held that the department did not lead any independent evidence, yet the finding recorded in the assessment proceedings that the books were not maintained in the ordinary course of business was good evidence and this taken along with surrounding circumstances, namely, non-production of seized material before the revising authority furnished material for imposing pen...
Ram Autar Ashok Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC366(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Aligarh, referred the following questions of law under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is any material or evidence to justify the rejection of books of account by the learned Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax?(2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is any material or evidence to justify the taxable turnover fixed by the Additional Judge (Revisions) at Rs. 4,37,010.30 for the year 1971-72?2. In view of the amendment of Section 11 this reference is heard and decided as revision.3. The assessee carried on business in foodgrains, oil-seeds and gur in kachi arhat. The assessment year in dispute is 1970-71. No defects in the assessee's account books were detected. Rather it was found to have been maintained with full details yet the assessing authority rejected them because the assessee's account books for 1969-70 were rejecte...
Krishna Industrial Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR656(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material for the finding that the cash credit entries in question represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources ?'2. The facts necessary to answer the question are short. The books of the assessee showed a deposit of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Kirna Devi and Bimla Devi who were respectively the mother and the wife of one Prakash Chandra Goyal, an erstwhile driver of the assessee. The assessee's contention was that these deposits were genuine and had been made by the ladies from the sale proceeds of their ornaments. The ITO did not accept this explanation and treated the deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal has held that Prakash Chandra Goyal was no more a driver of the assessee and has become its transport contractor. Thus, although he w...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Deoki Nandan Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC145(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. The respondent-assessee deals in purchase and sale of coal ash collected from railway yard. The assessment year involved is 1974-75 and the short question is as to whether the assessee is a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(e-1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority has treated the assessee as a manufacturer and the first appellate court has confirmed that finding. It has essentially relied on Clause 1 of the agreement which the assessee had entered with the railway administration. That clause reads:In consideration of the contractors agreeing to pay to the railway the sum of Rs. 35,272.80 yearly in advance as hereinafter provided the railway agrees to permit the contractor to remove ashes of all sizes dumped by railway engines in ash-pits and traffic yard and shed mentioned in annexure A appended hereunto for a period commencing from 20th June, 1973, to 31st March, 1975.2. The appellate authority laid emphasis on the words 'ashes of all sizes...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR774(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The assessee owned a truck and was a partner in twofirms, M/s. Amolak Ram Ram Prakasth and M/s. Ram Prakash KulbhushanRai. For the year 1967-68, he filed a return showing an income ofRs. 4,000. During the course of assessment the ITO found that the assesseehad invested a sum of Rs. 15,000 for he purchase of a truck which was runin partnership. The assessee's explanation regarding the invest(sic)that a loan of Rs. 2,000 had be (sic) taken from his father-in-lawbalance had come out of his savings. The ITO , gav(sic)Rs. 2,000 only as coming from (sic) savings, and treatedincome from undisclosed sources. Penalty proceedings were also started against the asseasee and the matter was referred to the IAC. The IAC did not accept the assessee's explanation that the amount represented the income of the assessee for the year 1966-67, and the income up to the date of the investment during the previous year, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,000 under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribuna...
Makhbu Lal Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(All)173; [1979]120ITR346(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The assessee-firm consisted of 5 partners with two minors admitted to its benefits, being constituted by a deed of partnership dated 29th October, 1965. The minors were Sri Krishna Chandra and Sri Manoj Kumar. The present reference is concerned with the assessment year 1968-69 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 12th November, 1967. Krishna Chandra, one of the two minors, became major on 12th February, 1967, that is, after a part of the previous year was over. He elected to remain a partner of the firm. No fresh deed of partnership was drawn after Krishna Chandra had attained majority and the assessee claimed renewal of registration on the basis of the old deed. The ITO allowed renewal. Subsequently, the ITO, in view of the decision of this court in the case of Ganesh Lal Laxmi Narain v. CIT : [1968]68ITR696(All) , took the view that the renewal was wrongly granted and as such referred the matter to the Addl. CIT for cancellation of the registration gra...
U.P. Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR658(All)
R.R. Rastogi, J.1. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing glasses. It follows the calendar year as its year of account. For the year 1963, the Assistant Labour Commissioner by an order dated November 18, 1965, directed the assessee to pay bonus to its workers. It appears that subsequently at the instance of the assessee by an order dated December 24, 1965, the assessee was given time to make the payment by 31st of January, 1966. In its assessment for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 15,273 being bonus paid for the year 1963 under the aforesaid order of the Labour Commissioner. The ITO held that this liability related to the year 1966-67 and, hence, disallowed the claim. On appeal, the AAC took a contrary view and treated the aforesaid payment as liability of the year under consideration. There was an appeal preferred by the department against that order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal...
Kr. Harish Chandra Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR118(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and a true and correct interpretation of the deed of partition and relevant provisions of the Estate Duty Act, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased had aninterest in the property which terminated on her death and benefit accrued/ arose and passed by the termination of such interest within the meaning of section 7 of the Estate Duty Act is correct '2. The assessee, the accountable person, is the son of one Raja Lalta Prasad, who died in the year 1924, leaving behind his widow, Rani Kalawati, and five sons, one of whom is the accountable person, and his brother, Rai Bahadur Sahu Har Prasad, and his son, Sahu Jagdish Prasad. The family was joint at the time of the death of Raja Lalta Prasad. On April 10, 1933, a partial partition took place, which was followed by a final partition on Decemb...
District Magistrate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR677(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1957-58 to 1971-72. The questions referred are : 'Whether, in the circumstances of the case and on the finding of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1960 (Sabir Ali Khan v. State of U.P.) that the property of depositors was obtained by the accused by fraud, the Tribunal was right in treating the property as the property of the company, viz., Rampur Bankers Ltd., and assessed as such 2. Whether the District Magistrate was or could be deemed to be a representative of the Rampur Bankers Ltd. in the circumstances of the case 3. Whether the District Magistrate while acting under orders of the High Court under Section 517, Cr. P.C. (present section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974) acts as representative of the company 4. Whether the District Magistrate, in the absence of any orders under the Indian Companies Act or of any Civil Court, be deemed to be an officer, representative or receiver of Rampur Banker...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »