Allahabad Court January 1983 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(All)124; [1984]146ITR191(All); [1983]15TAXMAN375(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 269H of the I.T. Act against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal passed under Section 269G.2. The facts are these :--Property No. 96, Tagore Town, Allahabad, was transferred on 31st October, 1973, by Hansraj to K.K. Agrawal, son of Ram Prasad Agrawal, and Smt. Prem Kumari Agrawal, wife of Ram Prasad Agrawal. The apparent consideration shown in the sale deed was Rs. 43,500 for the portion transferred to K.K. Agrawal and Rs. 48,500 for the portion transferred to Smt. Prem Kumari Agrawal. After receipt of Form 37G and enquiry, the ITO initiated proceedings for acquisition on the ground that the apparent value of the property was much less than the real. Objections against the initiation of the proceedings were filed by both the transferees. On 8th September, 1975, the IAC, Acquisition Range, Lucknow, held that the apparent value of the property for which it had been sold to the two transferees was less than the real value. Accordingly,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cawnpore Club Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(All)313; [1984]146ITR181(All); [1983]14TAXMAN211(All)
V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') under Section 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (for brief 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income of the assessee was liable to be assessed as income from other sources ? (ii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in the negative, was this income from property, as claimed by the Department, or business income, as claimed by the assessee ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee's claim that this income was exempt from tax on the principle of mutuality ' 2. The facts : The assessee, 'Cawnpore Club Ltd.', is a company and runs a club at Kanpur for the benefit of its members. Out of 15 rooms in its annexe, 13 rooms were let out to members of the club on payme...
Tag this Judgment!Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1166
M. Wahajuddin, J.1. The present Criminal Habeas Corpus petition has been preferred by Peoples' Union of Civil Liberties Allahabad Branch as well as by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi. Advocate, High Court. The prayer made in the application is that this Court be pleased to pass ad interim mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation made in October 1981 and received on 21-10-8! and/or pass such other orders as it deems fit. The application purports to have been preferred on behalf of the following 24 persons as laid below who were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1969, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ghanshyam Shukla under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing murder and were sentenced to life imprisonment: (1) Dwarika (2) Ghanshyam Shukla. (3) Ram Narain. (4) Moharram, (5) Ram Nath, (6) Suray Mani. (7) Gajral. (8) Sunian, (9) Bansraj, (10) Jagdamba, (11) Shankar. (12) Chandrika. (13) Subhag, (14) Lalji. (15) Basant. (16) Sahadat. (17) Tanse, (18) Gopal. (19) Shiv Piara. (20) Ram Br...
Tag this Judgment!Jagaran Publications Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD371(All.)
1. These two appeals, one relating to the assessment year 1975-76 and another relating to the assessment year 1976-77, filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), deal with common issues and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is a registered-firm. Amongst the expenses, deduction of which was claimed in working out the business income, was salaries to Shri P.C. Gupta, Shri N.M. Gupta, Shri Y.M. Gupta, Shri M.M. Gupta, and Shri Dhirendra Mohan Gupta, the aggregate of which amounted to Rs. 1,71,300 for the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 1,42,800 for the assessment year 1976-77. It was claimed before the I AC (Assessment) that all the five persons to whom the salaries were paid, were kartas of their respective HUF ; they were partners of the assessee-firm in their representative capacities, that is, on behalf ,of the t respective HUF, who were the partners of the assessee-firm, while salaries paid to...
Tag this Judgment!G.W. Lawrie and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD273(All.)
1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22-2-1978 of the AAC, who partly allowed the appeal against the order dated 23-3-1977 of the ITO.2. We are disposing of this appeal as ex parte since the assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing of the appeal in spite of the service of the notice of the date fixed for hearing of the appeal on 11-9-1979 without sufficient cause and reason when the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 11-9-1979 vide the order dated 2-8-1979 of the Tribunal on the request of the assessee ; so much so that neither there is telegram or application for further adjournment.3. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are that the assessee is a registered firm. It filed the return of total income for the accounting period ended on 30-6-1974 relevant for the assessment year 1974-75 showing therein income of Rs. 45,109 and thereby claimed deduction for the payment of commission amounting to Rs. 60,743 to Photo Colour Co., Lucknow (the r...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Synthetics Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(All)30; [1984]145ITR497(All); [1983]15TAXMAN588(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. M/s J.K. Synthetics limited invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principally, for a refund of the tax paid by it under a mistake of law for the assessment year 1970-71. Although the petition was founded on the invalidity of Rule 19A(3) of the I.T. Rules, subsequently the petitioner challenged the assessment and appellate orders as well by way of an amendment application, which was allowed, and a prayer for quashing these orders was permitted to be added.2. Refund of tax paid under a mistake of law is now a fully established principle. As far back as 1958 it was held by the Supreme Court in STO v. Kanhaiya Lal Makund Lal Saraf [1958] 9 STC 747, that (p. 756):'If one party under a mistake, whether of fact or law pays to another party money which is not due to by contract or otherwise, that money must be repaid. The mistake lies in thinking that the money paid was due when in fact it was not due and that mist...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Dinesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC92(All)
B.N. Sapru, J.1. This is a revision by the assessee.2. The only question in this revision is whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to allow an exemption to the assessee of his purchases amounting to Rs. 5,95,437 from M/s. Prakash Chandra Ram Dutt, Baberu, Danda, of food-grains.3. The said firm is a registered firm and a certificate by the assessing authority of that dealer was furnished to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) showing that the tax on purchases of this amount of foodgrains had been paid by the said firm. The exemption was refused to the assessee on the ground that the assessee had not produced the form prescribed under Rule 12-A. The assessee's case was that the said firm was refusing to give the said form because there was a dispute between the assessee and the said firm.4. In view of the fact that the assessee had furnished a certificate of the assessing authority of the firm M/s. Prakash Chandra Ram Dutt, showing that the said firm had paid tax on the purcha...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Shukla and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)3ITD502(All.)
1. The above appeal has been referred to this Special Bench by the President of the Tribunal under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a firm. It was constituted under an instrument of partnership dated 27-3-1973 having retrospective effect from 15-2-1973.It consists of the following four partners : Shri Madan Lal Shukla and Shri Suresh Chandra Shukla were partners in their representative capacity on behalf of their respective HUFs.Clauses 11 and 12 of the above deed are relevant and are reproduced below : 11. That the parties to this deed have also agreed to create a paramount charge amounting to 6.25 per cent on the profit accruing in the business in favour of Lok Sewa Mission, a charitable institution of Kanpur. Hence onwards the said 6.25 per cent shall be received by the firm and the partners as trustees for the benefit of Lok Sewa Mission. Further that the Lok Sewa Mission shall be entitled to get the said profits amounting to 6.25 per cent ...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC54(All)
R.M. Seth, J.1. Petitioners in all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in detaining their goods in the purported exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as substituted by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979 (U.P. Act 33 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the new Section 28-A). They question the validity of the action of the respondents inter alia on following grounds:1. Section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as substituted by U.P. Act No. 33 of 1979 is constitutionally invalid and as such it cannot be relied upon for sustaining the action of the respondents; and2. There being no valid notification by the State Government specifying the quantity, measure or value of goods as contemplated by Section 28-A(1), in existence, the respondents could not, in exercise of powers under Section 28-A(6) of the Act detain the goods of the petitioners.2. Before these petitions could be taken for hearing, th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. J.K. Srivastava and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1983
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(All)319; [1983]142ITR183(All); [1983]13TAXMAN496(All)
Satish Chandra, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has submitted this statement of the case and has 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 legally justified in cancelling the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer in the status of an individual based on the returns filed in the status of an association of persons ?' 2. The statement of the case involves the assessment years 1957-58 to 1976-77. For all these years the assessee filed returns under the W.T. Act in the status of an association of persons. At the hearing before the WTO it was contended on behalf of the assessee that no wealth-tax was chargeable on an association of persons. This submission was repelled on the ground that the word 'individual', occurring in Section 3 of the W.T. Act, included an association of persons. Accordingly, the assessee was assessed in the status of an individual. The as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »