Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1980]125ITR776(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. The assessee in both the references is the Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad. Whereas the assessment years involved in I.T.R. No. 374 of 1974 are 1966-67 to 1968-69, that involved in I.T.R. No. 230 of 1975 is the year 1969-70. 2. For the assessment years involved in the two references, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,201, Rs. 3,272, Rs. 2,814 and Rs. 422, being the amounts which it claimed to have contributed towards the Employees' Provident Fund set up under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. For the assessment year 1968-69, it also claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,380, the amount of interest paid by it to the said fund. 3. The ITO rejected the claim made by the assessee on the finding that the assessee did not set up any Employees' Provident Fund in accordance with law. The fund had been created by mixing up the employees' contribution, the contribution made by the bank, 1/4th of the business profit and the interest paid by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1980)18CTR(All)289; [1980]125ITR598(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissing the departmental appeal, thereby holding that salaries of the directors were not earned by detriment to join^ family assets and were not assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family ' 2. The assessee is a joint Hindu family carrying on business in the name and style of ' Kohinoor General Industries '. Earlier, up to the assessment year 1959-60, the business was carried on by a bigger HUF consisting of Sri Ram Lal Kakkar, his two sons, Basant Veer Kakkar and Pratap Veer Kakkar. Thereafter, a partial partition took place in the family and the business was taken over by a partnership firm which carried on the business in the same name in the accounting year relating to the assessment year 1960-61. In July, 1961, the partnersh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(All)62
1. JUDGMENT : H. N. Seth, J. - Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution by Smt. Kalawati Devi are as follows : Petitioners husband Sri Shankar Lal Omar, who was being assessed to income-tax in his individual capacity, died on 29-8-1968. On 17-4-1973, the IT Authorities searched business premises No. 49/90 Naughara, Kanpur. They seized assets worth Rs. 9,60,422 which included an amount of Rs. 4,44,742 in cash. The petitioner alongwith her three sons, namely, Sheo Nath, Vishwa Nath And Ram Gopal filed a settlement application before the CIT explaining the source of some of the assets and made an offer that the remaining accumulation may be brought to tax as profits of the business carried on by late Sri Shanker Lal. It is said that eventually a settlement was arrived at between the Department and the legal representatives of Sri Shankar Lal Omar. 2. On 29-11-1973 the ITO issued notices addressed to late Sri Shankar Lal Omar though the legal rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1981All5
D.N. Jha, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal directed against the iudg-ment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow dismissing the defendant's appeal and upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow.2. Plaintiff who is the respondent in this appeal filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-appellant. In brief, the case of the plaintiff was that defendant was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 8.75 in the shop with 'ahata' appurtenant to it. The tenancy was to commence from the 1st day of each calendar month and ended with the last day of each calendar month. The plaintiff was in arrears of rent from 1-5-1964 to 12-4-1967. The arrears of rent claimed was Rs. 317.43 till the date of filing of the suit. Pendete lite interest and future damages has also been claimed coupled with the relief of ejectment. Plaintiff sent the notice by registered post on 9-3-67 but was refused by the defendant-appellant on 13-3-1967...
Tag this Judgment!