Allahabad Court August 1983 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kishan Gopal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD311(All.)
1. These two appeals, filed by the revenue, arise out of the orders dated 5-2-1982 and 4-2-1983 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).2. In both the appeals, the question relates to the deletion of the additions made for excise duty. The facts are as follows : The assessee is a wholesale dealer in poppy heads. Its system of accounting is mercantile. No rate of excise duty was specified on poppy heads under the Opium Act, 1878, but only under Rule 42A(J) of the U.P. Poppy Head Rules, 1961, under a notification dated 1-7-1969 vide the U.P. Poppy Head (Amendment) Rules, 1969 (at the rate of 50 paise per kg.).Thereupon the assessee, along with seven other dealers, challenged such levy by means of writ petition No. 955 of 1969 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad Kishan Gopal v. V. K. Arora, ITO [1983] 141 ITR 763. Under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee had deposited the arrears of excise duty and also had to continue to dep...
Pt. Lashkariram Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD994(NULL)
ORDER--Non-speaking order.Ratio:Where assessing officer's order was very brief and did not contain detailed discussion about scrutiny of investment or about sources of deposits in assessee's bank account or about correctness of sale price as declared, Commissioner was justified in setting it aside.Held:The assessment order was very brief and could not be said to be a speaking order. The Commissioner was, therefore, right in holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the Income Tax Officer had applied his mind to ascertain the extent of investment made in the purchase of chassic for the new truck as well as the expenditure incurred in the construction of the body thereof. In the assessment order, no mention was also made whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were to be initiated. The revisional order was, therefore, justified.Application:Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›