Allahabad Court September 1986 Judgments
Jagwansh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR283(All)
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. Jagwansh Kumar has challenged the validity of Sub-clause (iii)(b) of Clause (14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1970, substituted Section 2(14)(iii) from April 1, 1970, by a new provision, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below :'3. Amendment of Section 2.--In Section 2 of the Income-tax Act,-- (a) in Clause (14), for Sub-clause (iii), the following sub-clause shall be substituted, namely :-- ' (iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate--... (b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette 3. The object of this amendment is to bring within the term 'capital asset', agricultural land situate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naresh Chandra Bhargava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR288(All)
1. After having perused the record, we find that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal simply remands the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for fresh hearing and disposal. While doing so, the Tribunal has not decided any point against or in favour of either of the two parties. Consequently, we do not consider the present case as a fit one where we should exercise our discretion conferred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and call for a statement of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. This application is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Gubrele Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(All)142; [1987]167ITR723(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act for waiving or reducing the amount of penalty imposed upon him. 2. The petitioner was the assessee whose application has been rejected by the impugned order of the Commissioner on the ground that since the petitioner had not paid interest, the application was incompetent and was not maintainable. Section 273A did not entitle the Commissioner to reject the application simply because the petitioner had not made payment of interest. If an assessee makes arrangements for payment of interest, that would be a sufficient ground for consideration of the application on merits. In fact, the Commissioner did not apply his mind to the fact as to whether the petitioner had made arrangements for payment of interest or not inasmuch as he was of the view that since the petitioner had not paid the amount of interest, he would...
Tag this Judgment!Baleshwar Flour and Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC450(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present revision the question raised is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the applicant has done business in its own account on the basis of survey dated 23rd April, 1977.2. The present revision relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The applicant's case is that it has not done any business in the year in question and it declared its turnover to be nil. The Sales Tax Officer, however, rejected the contention of the applicant and fixed taxable turnover at Rs. 1,15,000 and imposed with the tax of Rs. 4,200.3. In appeal by the dealer, the appellate authority dismissed its appeal. In the second appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal has also dismissed the same.4. According to the applicant, it has not done any business during the relevant period of this assessment year. It was urged that only ground for not accepting the case was the survey dated 23rd Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kraft Place
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR236(All)
1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following question of law does arise in the present case : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has come to a correct legal conclusion in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to weighted deduction in respect of expenditure incurred in India which is attributable to the sales made by the firm to foreign tourists at the counter in Agra ' 2. We consequently allow the application and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, to draw up the statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question to this court. No order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lall's International
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR237(All)
We have heard counsel for the Department. The only question raised in this application is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act on the amount spent on repairs, reconstruction of the show-room and the amount paid by way of bonus to the employees. The Income-tax Officer had allowed weighted deduction on rent as well as on the amount paid as salary to the employees. The Tribunal has, therefore, allowed the assessee's claim under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act on repairs as well as on bonus. We do not find that in doing so, the Tribunal has committed any error of law. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no statable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The application filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act is hereby rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. S. Harish Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(All)56; [1987]167ITR230(All); [1987]30TAXMAN100(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. This is a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question referred to us is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that a notional partition is to be assumed prior to the date of death of the deceased in consequence of which 1/4th of the coparcenary property passed on his death ?'2. The facts, briefly stated, are that late Justice Harish Chandra died on September 11, 1972, leaving behind his widow, Smt. S. Harish Chandra, who filed a statement of the family property claiming that the deceased had only one-fourth share in the property. The deceased had one brother, Bishan Chandra, who had died even before leaving behind Smt. Swarup Rani, his widow, and no issue. The deceased, late Justice Harish Chandra, had only one daughter who had been married before his death. According to the accountable person, the branch of the deceased had one-half share ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Assistant Collector Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC334; 1987(11)LC35(Allahabad); 1986(26)ELT492(All)
K.C. Agarwal, J.1. M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills limited Dhampur district, Bijnor, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Moradabad, dated 25-8-1986 by which the application of the petitioner made for refund of the excise duty or for granting an additional rebate has been rejected on the ground inter alia, that it was time barred.2. The petitioner's counsel urged that the view taken by the Asstt. Collector was incorrect. For the argument advanced, he relied on Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. By reading the relevant provisions, specially clause (e) of Sub-section 5 of Section 11B, learned counsel submitted that since the provisional assessment had been made against the petitioner, the cause of action for claiming refund could not be said to have become barred by time. It was submitted that under the aforesaid clause of Section 11B(5) the period of six months stated in Sub-section 1 of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Gaya Prasad Anil Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC141(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. The Revenue has preferred the present revision which relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The respondent (dealer) carries on the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains and admitted his tax liability at Rs. 4,685. The assessing authority rejected the books of account of the dealer and fixed his turnover to Rs. 3,65,000 imposing tax liability at Rs. 16,420. The dealer preferred first appeal and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) partly allowed the appeal, reduced the tax liability to Rs. 6,890. As against the first appellate order, the dealer as well as the Revenue preferred second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. In the appeal preferred by the dealer, the Tribunal reduced the net turnover while the second appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the same on the ground that since the appeal filed by the dealer has already been decided, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.2. Learned Standing Counsel urged that the decision of the Tribunal in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Sen Jai Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC173(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the order dated April 30, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, Meerut, relating to assessment year 1981-82, has come to this Court in the instant revision.2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains, gur, khandsari, etc., both on its own behalf as well as on behalf of commission agency. The disclosed turnover of the assessee, under the U. P. and the Central Sales Tax Acts, was rejected by the assessing authority and best judgment assessment was passed. The assessee preferred first appeals under Section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, who allowed the appeal relating to the Central Sales Tax Act in toto, but the appeal relating to the U. P. head was allowed in part and the taxable turnover was reduced maintaining the rejection of books of account. The Revenue as well as the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »