Allahabad Court October 1986 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. Hari Ram Sri Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(All)104; [1987]167ITR578(All); [1987]32TAXMAN609(All)
R.R. Misra, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, 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 correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 16,500 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c)?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. For the assessment year 1964-65, it derived income from business in foodgrains, cement and cloth. It had filed a return of income of Rs. 17,122. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Subsequently, however, the Income-tax Officer received information that the assessee had received various bank drafts in the names of its employees and one member of the Hindu undivided family, namely, Sri Ram, amounting to Rs. 1,07,733 and did not record the transactions in question in its account books. Co...
Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Private Limited and anr. Vs. the State of U.P. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC310
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Private Limited, Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad and Jagat Singh Bisht, who was the wholesale dealer of Dabur products, carrying on his business in Almora. The reliefs sought for by this petition is for quashing of the notifications, the details of which would be given at appropriate places in this judgment, and for mandamus directing the State of U.P. and the Excise Commissioner as also its officers from interfering with the business of the petitioners in Ayurvedic medicines, including Mrit Sanjiwani Sura, in pursuance of the impugned notifications and the Rules published by respondents 1 and 2 on 14th September, 1978.2. For discussing the points urged, since it is necessary to make a brief reference of the relevant provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, we hereby do so. Amongst the various objects of the aforesaid Act enumerated in its Preamble, one of them is to carry into ...
Soonoo Keki Patel and ors. Vs. Bishnath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC282
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two First Appeals From Order have been preferred against the award dated 30th September, 1977 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, in Claim Case No. 1 of 1967.2. One K.D. Patel was, at the time of accident in question on 27th March, 1967, travelling on a taxi. The taxi met with an accident with a truck owned by one Bishwanath Singh. K.D. Patel on account of the account died on the spot. His widow and two daughters made a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Apart from impleading Bishwanath Singh, the owner of the truck, and Babu Ram, the driver of the truck, as the opposite parties, the claimants impleaded Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. as an opposite party. The claim was contested by the owner of the truck The Tribunal, however, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties allowed the claim for recovery of Rs. 42,500/- against Bishwanath Singh, the owner of the truck, and Babu Ram, the driver of the truck...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Shiv Puran Lal Gulati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(All)44; [1987]167ITR545(All); [1986]29TAXMAN508(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. As directed by the High Court, vide its order dated February 15, 1979, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has drawn up a statement of the case and referred the questions, mentioned below, for decision :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the agricultural land belonged to the deceased's Hindu undivided family of which he was the karta ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 only was includible in the estate duty assessment of the deceased as his individual estate and a sum of Rs. 60,000 was includible for rate purposes as the share of the lineal descendants under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?' 2. On the death of Brij Lal Gulati on August 4, 1971, his son, Shiv Puran Lal Gulati, submitted a return. Since the details of the return are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the questi...
Hindustan Burlap Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC336; 1987(11)LC37(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT372(All)
ORDER1. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that since a second appeal lies as against the order impugned by means of the supplementary affidavit filed before us today, we decline to interfere.2. It is settled that if there is a statutory remedy provided, this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. The petitioner's counsel urged that the petitioner may not succeed in obtaining a stay order from the Appellate Tribunal therefore, he wanted the aforesaid order to be quashed by this Court by means of the proceedings under Article 226.4. We do not find that to be a sufficient ground for entertaining the writ petition. To grant a stay or not to do so is the discretion of the authority before whom an appeal lies. Moreover the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act can apply for a stay. The Tribunal will be entitled in that event, to consider the pros and cons of the matter and to grant the prayer for stay, if sufficient ground fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›