Allahabad Court December 1986 Judgments
Omrao Industrial Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD739(All.)
1. The first appeal is by the asses-see and the second one is by the revenue. These are directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), by which he has partly sustained the penalty imposed by the ITO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,23,427 which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) by his separate order to Rs. 22,620. The assessee's appeal is against the above retention of part of the penalty imposed, while the appeal by the revenue is against the deletion of Rs. 5,00.807, being the balance of the amount imposed. The facts of the case and the background are identical. Accordingly, we consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. At the first instance, we shall take up the appeal by the assessee in which it is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the penalty imposed to the above extent as the Commissioner (Appeals) has misdirected himself in holding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. S. Inder Singh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD544(All.)
1. The appeals are by the revenue, which are directed against the separate orders of the Commissioner by which he cancelled the orders of the rectification passed by the WTO, for both the years under consideration. The facts of the case and the background are similar and accordingly the learned Counsels of both the sides have addressed us in one set. We accordingly consolidate the appeals for disposal by this common order.2. The first common point of appeal by the revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) went wrong in cancelling the order passed under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') by the WTO.3. In his order under Section 35, the WTO mentioned for the assessment year 1978-79 that the original assessment was made on the net wealth of Rs. 23,80,800 which was reduced by the appellate authorities to Rs. 16,21,600. The assessment was made on 24-12-1982. He pointed out that a search was made at the residence of the assessee on 16-7-1981, during which, certain papers, v...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Chandra Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(All)228; [1987]168ITR481(All)
1. The petitioner, Satish Chandra Agarwal, carried on business in the name and style of ' Diamond Jewellers ' in Sarrafa Bazar, Meerut. He has filed this writ petition praying that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, dated July 10, 1986, be quashed and the subsequent penal proceedings as well. It was further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to drop the penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner and not to give effect to the notice served by the Department.2. The petitioner had failed to file a return for the assessment year 1984-85 within time. A raid was organised by the Income-tax Department into both the business as well as residential premises of the petitioner on February 8, 1985. The petitioner had thereafter on January 28, 1986, voluntarily filed his income-tax return under Section 139(4) of the Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The petitioner also filed the income-tax return for the year 1985-86 on January 28, 198...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Bhagwati Roller Flour Mills and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer (A) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC117(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been filed by Shree Bhagwati Roller Flour Mills, Station Road, Mainpuri, for certiorari quashing the provisional assessment orders dated 18th November, 1985 (annexures 16 to 23) and the proviso to Government notification dated 18th July, 1979.2. We have considered the validity of the notification dated 18th July, 1979, in the connected Writ Petition No. 312 of 1985, Shree Laxmi Distributing Agency v. State of U.P. [1987] 66 STC 112 (All.), decided on 19th December, 1986 and for the reasons given in that writ petition, we do not find any force in the contention that the proviso of the said notification, which runs as under, is liable to be struck off :.Provided that such wheat is purchased from the Food Corporation of India.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners had admitted that the notification when it was issued was valid. It is on account of the subsequent change of the policy of the Central Government pe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. PravIn Chemicals Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC138(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow has filed this revision against the order dated 29th March, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, Ghaziabad in respect of the liability of the assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74.2. During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee manufactured chemicals. It had its head office at, Ghaziabad. It received orders on phone from its customers at Delhi. The goods in pursuance of the said orders were supplied to the parties by road directly by the head office. The assessee had maintained a depot at Delhi. The said depot used to place orders with the head office at Ghaziabad which were received from customers at Delhi. The supplies in respect of these orders were directly made from the head office to customers. Bills at Ghaziabad and Delhi were prepared by one and the same person. There was difference in transport charges in respect of the goods supplied by the assessee to various...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Laxmi Distributing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: [1987]66STC112(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Shree Laxmi Distributing Agency Private Limited, for ceriiorari quashing of the notification dated 18th July, 1979, partly in so far as it lays down that the exemption from payment of tax on the purchase of wheat for use as raw material in the manufacture of the notified goods provided that such wheat was purchased from the Food Corporation of India.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the production of atta, maida, suji, etc. In the year 1958, the Central Government issued an order known as Wheat (Regulation and Use in Roller Mills) Order, 1958. Under Clause 4 of this Order, the roller mill was prohibited from purchasing any wheat from the open market. It could, under the Order, use the wheat which was allotted by the Government or the Government agency, Food Corporation of India. Since the roller flour mills were prohibited from purchasing the...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Metal Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC339; 1987(27)ELT600(All)
A.P. Misra, J 1. In the present case since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed and having heard counsel for both the parties we have decided to dispose of finally this writ petition at the admission stage.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. According to the petition it does not roll Copper Alloy Circules and only manufactures billets and gets them rolled at the various Rolling Mills. By means of this writ petition the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to release all the detained goods and for the return of the seized records.3. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the Collector, Central Excise did not extend the statutory period of six months for issue of show cause notice in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods detained and the documents seized are liable to be released and returned. It was further urged that the act of respondent is only for harassment as the goods which have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Hasan Mumtaz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(All)72; [1987]168ITR412(All); [1987]31TAXMAN216(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's finding that in view of the income-tax assessment wherein Rs. 52,000, i.e., the difference between the declared consideration and the deemed value of the consideration, has been taken into account for computation of capital gains, the said amount of Rs. 52,000 could not be charged to gift-tax ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the departmental appeal following the lone judicial opinion favourable to the assessee and ignoring the various decisions of the various High Courts in favour of the Department on the issue ?' 2. In assessment year 1967-68, the assessee sold his house situated a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hari Nath and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(All)52; [1987]168ITR440(All); [1987]32TAXMAN69(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that payment of interest made to the partner, Shri Hari Nath, on his interest earning deposit account was not covered by Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in its deleting the additions of Rs. 7,083, Rs. 7,537, Rs. 3,882 and Rs. 5,914, respectively, made by the Income-tax Officer on this account? '2. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of several partners. Hari Nath, one of the partners, in his individual capacity received interest on the amounts invested by him in the firm in his individual capacity. The Income-tax Officer added back these amounts to the total income of the assessee-firm. The assessee-firm appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended in the appeal t...
Tag this Judgment!Saraya Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(All)51; [1987]168ITR455(All); [1987]31TAXMAN165(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,44,669 on new trucks purchased in the year under consideration and also on written down value of the old trucks, etc., when full details were filed in the shape of Nos. of trucks and date of purchase '2. This reference is confined to the year 1969-70.3. The assessee is a private limited company and the gross receipt was shown at Rs. 5,46,805 against which the profit shown was Rs.34,527. In the explanation, the assessee claimed that on account of bad condition and hilly area, abnormally high expenses were incurred for the operation and repairs of vehicles. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and the accounts submitted by the assessee and, as such, he made...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »