Allahabad Court September 1982 Judgments
Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(All)41; [1983]143ITR584(All); [1983]12TAXMAN209(All)
R.B. Lal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court at the request of the assessee :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is a taxable entity under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the principle of mutuality could be invoked in the case of the assessee ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a reading of the provisions contained in Section 2(15), Section 11 and Section 10(23A) together, is the assessee an institution for charitable purpose or is it covered by Section 10(23 A) ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income derived by the assessee from securities and other investments is liable to tax under Section 28(1) of the Act ? (5) Whether, on the facts and i...
Tag this Judgment!Obeetee (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(All)78; [1983]143ITR793(All); [1983]12TAXMAN351(All)
K.N. Seth, J. 1. The assessee is a limited company and derives income from manufacture and processing of carpets. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the ITO taxed the income at 65 per cent. when he completed the original assessment. The assessee went up in appeal. It also made an application before the ITO under Section 154 of the I.T. Act on December 3, 1968, claiming that it was an industrial company in which the public are not substantially interested and it was liable to be taxed at fifty-five per cent. instead of sixty-five per cent.2. The AAC granted certain reliefs to the assessee in the appeals preferred by it. The ITO, while revising his assessment orders pursuant to the order of the AAC, calculated tax at the rate of 55 per cent. Subse-quently, he issued a show-cause notice under Section 154 for rectification of the mistake on the ground that the tax should have been charged at sixty-five per cent.3. The ITO on March 3, 1970, passed two separate orders--one on the a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna (by Lrs. Ram Ratan and ors.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(All)75; [1983]142ITR618(All); [1983]13TAXMAN309(All)
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been prayed that the proceedings for recovery of income-tax dues and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax be quashed and the respondents be restrained from making attachment and collection of rent of property No. 55/110, General Ganj, Kanpur. 2. The material facts as they appear from the petition, the affidavit and the annexures thereto, are these. There was an HUF consisting of Shri Krishna and his four sons. Shri Krishna was the karta of an HUF. The HUF was being regularly assessed in respect of its income. The karta filed returns for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 and the assessment for these years was completed under Section 23(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (briefly 'the Act'), on March 28, 1955, and January 18, 1956, respectively. The assessment of income-tax for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56 was completed ex parte under Section 23(4) of the Act on Febr...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Vs. Adhikchhak, Kendriya Karagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ744
M. Wahajuddin, J.1. Sushil Kumar, the petitioner, has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act by an order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad, dated 3-11-81. He preferred an earlier Habeas Corpus Petition No. 15165 of 1981 assailing such detention. It was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12-4-1982 and his detention was upheld. Thereafter this second habeas corpus petition has been preferred on 26-7-1982. While admitting this petition, the Court vide its order dated 30-7-1982 expressly observed that this second petition will be considered strictly on the ground which have been raised for the first time and are not covered by the petition already decided and rejected by the Court-2. One of the new points raised in this petition is that the representation for revocation of the detention order made by the petitioner to the State Government and the Union of India on 2-7-1982 have not been decided so far and that vitiates the continued detention of the detenu...
Tag this Judgment!Flexicons Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD658(All.)
1. The assessee Flexicons Ltd. is a widely-held company and is in appeal for the assessment year 1972-73. The relevant accounting period of the assessee-company ended on 30-6-1971 and the system of accounting is mercantile. In the preceding accounting year ended on 30-6-1970, there was an amalgamation by which Aluminium Alloys & Castings (P.) Ltd., amalgamated with it on 4-10-1969.2. The first 3 grounds of appeal relate to the remuneration and perquisite of rent-free quarters given to the managing director and the remuneration given to another whole-time director and for the present we will refer to relevant facts about the disallowances made by the ITO in respect of the aforementioned items. At an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders held on 4-10-1969 the assessee-company fixed the remuneration of the managing director at Rs. 3,000 per month and of the whole-time director at Rs. 2,500 per month with effect from 18-7-1969 in modification of previous agreements dated 22-6-1967...
Tag this Judgment!Lucknow Producers' Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(All)81; [1983]143ITR60(All); [1983]12TAXMAN72(All)
K.B. Lal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the entire cost of assets constructed or purchased out of grant of money received from the Government ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a grant given by the Government is to be considered as a contribution by any other person or authority, or the assets acquired by the grant money, is a property of the assessee ' 2. M/s. Lucknow Producers' Co-operative Milk Union, Lucknow (briefly the assessee), is a co-operative society. The Government of Uttar Pradesh made a grant of Rs. 75,000 to the assessee by deed of grant dated December 17, 1963, for purchase of specific capital items such as vehicles, milk storage, tanks, etc. The assessee acquired such capital assets with the help of this grant. While making assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Pyare Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(All)234; [1983]142ITR462(All); [1983]13TAXMAN174(All)
R.B. Lal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly ' the Act '), for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that the gifts were not accepted by the two ladies, Smt. Bimla Devi and Smt. Shashi Prabha Devi, and they had no possession or control over the amount gifted to them ? 2. Whether the reasonableness or otherwise of the amount of gift when not challenged by any member or members of the family whose interests are affected, could be said to be a void gift ab initio 2. The material facts are these : M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Pyare Lal, assessee, is an HUF with Pyare Lal as its karta. The coparcenary consisted of Pyare Lal and his two sons. Smt. Simla Devi and Smt. Shashi Prabha Devi are the wives of those sons. The accounting period of the assessee relevant for the assessment year 1961-62 was from July 8, 1959 to June 26,...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Sugar Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT285(All)
K.N. Seth, J.1. These petitions raise a common question and may conveniently be decided by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are public limited companies and manufacture sugar through vacuum pan process. M/s. Kesar Sugar Works Limited and M/s Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Limited manufacture alcohol also in the distilleries ituate within the premises of the sugar mills. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited manufacture sugar in Mawana Sugar Works, Mawana and Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala in the district of Meerut. The Daurala Sugar Works also has a distillery for manufacturing alcohol from molasses. Molasses produced at the Mawana and Daurala Sugar Factories is transferred to the distillery situate in the premises of the Daurala Sugar Works, in the petition filed by M/s Amritsar Sugar Mills it is not asserted that the petitioner manufactures alcohol also. In the process of manufacture of sugar molasses is produced as a bye-product which forms the basic material from which alco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)220; [1983]143ITR901(All); [1983]12TAXMAN91(All)
R.B. Lal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following questions under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly ' the Act '), for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in holding that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) could not be invoked even though it was canvassed by the departmental representative ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in ignoring the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) which formed part of the section ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of Section 139(1) read with Section 64(1)(ii) and footnote 2 of the prescribed form of return, was the assessee guilty of concealment of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in not showing the share income of his minor son, Pawan Kumar, from the firm in which the assessee was a partner ? 4...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Swaroop Srivastava Vs. T.P. Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ537
ORDERR.C. Das Sharma, J.1. Before adverting to the real controversy between the parties it would be convenient to refer to certain facts which are admitted on both sides. The petitioner who is presently working as Regional Director, Social Forestry and is a member of the All India Forest Service was the senior most Conservator of Forests and, was due for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests since persons senior to him had either retired or had already been promoted. There were two vacant posts of Additional Chief Conservator of Forests and a selection for these posts was to be held on 3-2-1982. The petitioner, however filed a representation just a day before the selection requesting that his representation against the adverse entry of 1980-81 be decided first and he be given a personal hearing and meanwhile the selection should be postponed. Selection was, however, held at which the petitioner was not selected and two persons junior to him, namely, Sri P. N....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »