Allahabad Court December 1984 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narang Dairy Products
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(All)311; [1986]159ITR243(All); [1985]22TAXMAN286(All)
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of continuation of registration under Section 185 during the assessment year 1971-72, even though the income derived by it daring this year was held to be assessable as income from other sources ?'2. The relevant facts in a narrow compass as appear from the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal are that the assessee, opposite party, was carrying on business of manufacturing milk powder and other dairy products and was registered under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), as a partnership firm in the year 1965-66. By virtue of declarations made in this behalf, the registration was continued in the succeeding years. In the assessment year 1971-72 also, the assessee filed a declaration under Section 184(7) of the Act claiming continua...
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. District Judge, Varanasi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1986All178
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, J. 1. These three writ petitions have been preferred by the State of U. P. against the judgment of the District Judge. VaranasL passed in Ceiling appeals Nos. 45 of 1979. 455 of 1979 and 12 of 1980.2. Gyan Das and his two sons, Sri Kumar Agrawal and Vinod Kumar Agrawal filed separate statements under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After survey, the draft statements were served under Section 8(3). Against the draft statements, four objections were filed. These objections were by Gyan Das, Sri Kumar Agrawal and Vinod Kumar Agrawal and Pravin Kumar, minor son of Gyan Das. The main objection of Gyan Das was that the entire property was the joint Hindu family property consisting of Gyan Das, and his aforesaid three sons and, as such, each one of the members had one fourth share. Similar objections were filed by his sons Vinod Kumar, Sri Kumar and Pravin Kumar (minor).3. The Competent Authority consolidated...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Adarsh Paper and Board Manufacturing Com ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: [1987]65STC243(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1.These are four revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the judgment passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar Bench, Muzaffarnagar, dated 28th May, 1983, allowing the appeals of the respondent-assessee for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act and for the assessment year 1978-79 arising out of original assessment proceedings under Ruleule 41(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. The respondent-assessee deals in manufacture and sale of mill board. In the assessment year 1978-79 mill board sold by the respondent-assessee has been treated as a kind of paper and covered under Notification No. ST-II-332/X-1012-1971 dated 15th November, 1971 and reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 started under Section 21 of the Ac...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Chintamani Sadh,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: [1986]159ITR128(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred one question each in these references under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the opinion of this court. All the assessees are Hindu undivided families and they are partners in the firms, namely, Chinthamani and Brothers and Kastoor Chand Munnalal, through their kartas. They claimed exemption in respect of the value of their interest in the assets, belonging to the said firms, on the ground that the assets formed part of an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. Involving a common question, all these three references are consolidated and decided together by a common order.3. The short question in these references is :Whether the assets belonging to the firms in which the assessees are partners, formed part of an 'industrial undertaking' within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The facts foun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›