Allahabad Court December 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.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. G.N. Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(All)308; [1987]168ITR319(All); [1987]31TAXMAN354(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. By this reference under Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction of retirement of the assessee constituted extinguishment of his rights in the partnership firm within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,45,000?' 2. One Sri S. N. Khanna died on December 2, 1967. He was a partner having six annas share in a firm which carried on the business under the name and style of Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Company. Besides the deceased, the other three partners were his sons.3. Three days prior to his death, the dece...
Smt. Sohni Devi and ors. (Lrs. of Smt. Bitti Kunwar) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(All)88; [1987]168ITR308(All); [1987]31TAXMAN163(All)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Bitti Kunwar, challenging the auction of house No. 74/110, Dhankutti, Kanpur. Against the attachment of her house, Smt. Bitti Kumar had filed objection on November 16, 1979. She died during the pendency of attachment and her objections were dismissed on March 12, 1984, after hearing her heirs and legal representatives. Since no payment of taxes was made and the demands were still outstanding, the property No. 74/110 aforesaid was directed to be put to auction against which the legal heirs of late Bitti Kunwar filed their objections. The Tax Recovery Officer, after hearing the legal representatives, held :'Thus it is proved that the association of persons was carrying on its business under the association of Smt. Bitti Kunwar, Shri Munnalal Shukla and Shri Kamal Krishna Shukla during this period. Therefore, the contention that there was no business and no income-tax ...
Laldas Sahu Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1987All184
B.N. Katju, J. 1. The applicant was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-by the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Special Court (Economic Offences), Hamirpur dated 24-8-1982 passed in case No. 16 of 1981. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1982, which was dismissed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Hamirpur by his judgment dated 4-12-1982. He thereafter filed this revision in this Court.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4-9-1979 at about 12.30 p.m. Nagendra Rai, Food Inspector (PW 1) purchased 750 gms. of Lahi oil on payment of Rs. 7.50 from the shop of the applicant in the market of qasba Rath Kot. It was divided into three phials and one of the phials was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The report of the Public Analys...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ganesh Int. Udyog
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC190(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow against the order dated 5th February, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur.2. For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessing authority had rejected the book version of the turnover shown by the assessee and made an estimate of turnover. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who upheld the rejection of the account books of the assessee but reduced the quantum of turnover. Against this order, both the Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as the assessee filed second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The appeal preferred by the assessee was decided earlier by the Tribunal. The main contest in the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal was as to whether the account books of the assessee were liable to be rejected. The said appeal was duly contested by the Commissioner of Sale...
Ram Singh Vs. Kazi MohiuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: AIR1988All210
ORDEROm Prakash, J. 1. This is an application under Order 6, Rule 16 C.P.C. by the respondent No. 1 praying that the paragraphs Nos. 7 to 71 of the election petition be struck out, inasmuch as they do not disclose material facts and cause of action.2. The petitioner who was one of the candidates has filed the petition under Section 81 of the Representation of people Act, 1951 (the Act, 1951 in brief) calling in question the election of the respondent No. 1 to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from 420 Roorkee Legislative Assembly Constituency with the prayer that (1) the election of the respondent No. 1 be declared void and be set aside; and (2) that the petitioner be declared elected instead from the aforesaid constituency.3. For electing the members of the U. P.Legislative Assembly general elections tookplace in March, 1985. Last date of filing thenomination paper was 6-2-1985 and the lastdare of withdrawal was 9-2-1985. The polltook place on 5-3-1985. The accounting wasdone on 6th March...
Shushil Kumar and Sons Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC64(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. The petitioner held a licence for khandsari manufacturing unit. He gave the required option contemplated under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 and had to pay tax as provided by Rule 13-A of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). With regard to the closure of the unit the petitioner sent a registered letter dated 23rd April, 1982, intimating his intention to close the unit on 30th April, 1982. The petitioner, however, again sent another letter dated 26th April, 1982, intimating that now he will be closing the unit on 3rd May, 1982. The Khandsari Inspector also inspected the unit on 4th May, 1982, and found the same closed. On these facts there is no dispute between the parties. The Khandsari Inspector, however, was of the opinion that the second intimation for closure of the unit on 3rd May, 1982, was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to p...
Jeodhan Rai Vs. Ram Lagan Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC382
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The first appeal has been preferred by Jeodhan Rai against the order dated 20th March, 1979 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur dismissing the claim of the appellant for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that according to the claimant Jeodhan Rai be along with his nephew Barrister Rai was going on foot to Gorakhpur University from Gol-Ghar in the district of Gorakhpur on 28th December, 1976 and that at about 2-15 P.M. a tractor belonging to Ram Lagan Tewari respondent No. 1 having its registration number as UTQ 690 dashed against him causing a fracture of his left neck of femur.3. The claim was contested by respondent No. 1. His case was that no accident from his tractor UTQ 690 took place at all on 28th December, 1976 as asserted by the appellant and that indeed on 28th December, 1976 the tractor was not even in his possession. According to him...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Maharani Raj Lakshmi Kumari Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(All)71; [1987]168ITR389(All); [1987]31TAXMAN206(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that an appeal lay against the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty to the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and in that view directing the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits ?'2. We are of the opinion that under Section 62(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the appeal is competent. This provision confers a right of appeal on any person (including the accountable person) denying his liability to the amount of estate duty payable in respect of any property.3. In the instant case, the accountable person denied his liability. Consequently, the appeal was maintainable and, as such, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Smt. Yashoda Devi Kedia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(All)276; [1987]168ITR278(All); [1987]31TAXMAN71(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the second gift of Rs. 15,000 made on April 2, 1971, to Sri Sumit Kedia was a genuine gift in view of the fact that after making the first gift of Rs. 15,000, the donor did not have sufficient cash in her books ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash not existing in reality can be made a subject-matter of gift ?3. Whether modes of gift can artificially be created so as to be treated as a valid gift under the Gift-tax Act '2. The assessee is an individual. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee made entries in her books showing gifts made to her minor grandchildren as follows :Name of the grandchildDate of giftAmount gifted Rs.1.Sri Amitabh KediaApril 2, 197115,0002. Sri Sumit KediaApril 2, 197115,00...
Shiv Shanker Sitaram and ors. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(All)234; [1987]168ITR275(All); [1987]31TAXMAN76(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for a number of reliefs. One of them is for setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated September 19, 1985, by which penalty was reduced or waived by 50% under Section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Section 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act confers discretion on the Commissioner to reduce or waive the amount of any penalty payable by the assessee under this Act, if he is satisfied that--' (i) to do otherwise would cause genuine hardship to the assessee, having regard to the circumstances of the case; and (ii) the assessee has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him.' The Commissioner of Income-tax considered the relevant facts while dealing with the application under Section 273A(4) and on the satisfaction that the petitioner co-operated with the income-tax authorities in the course of assessment and payme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›