Allahabad Court October 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(All)206; [1988]171ITR698(All); [1987]35TAXMAN522(All)
ORDER--Finding as to error in assessment orderHELD:Where the ITO had completed assessment after discussion with the representative of the assessee in the absence of any error pointed out by the Commissioner, the assessment could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mukand Family Trust.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(All)209
Om Prakash J. :Raising the following identical questions in all these applications, filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, relating to asst. yr. 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the CIT, Agra, has prayed that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer these questions for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of s. 263 are not applicable and in cancelling the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 ?2. Whether, the Tribunals decision that mere failure on the part of the ITO to make enquiries and investigation regarding the assessees versions and his acceptance of whatever has been said by the assessee in the return and the papers accompanying it without any enquiry regarding sources of income and its ownership is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the ITOs order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and that something more should be shown indicating lo...
Tag this Judgment!Paliwal Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC134; 1988(15)LC273(Allahabad); 1988(35)ELT465(All)
K.P. Singh, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of othe Tribunal contained in Annexure A5 attached with the Writ Petition whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed on the ground of limitation and the delay has not been condoned, on 19.2.1986, a Bench of this Court granted time to the learned Counsel for the Union of India to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed in this case.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have perused the impugned judgment. A bare reading of the impugned judgment indicates that the Tribunal has taken a technical view in not condoning the delay on the part of the petitioner. The tend of the authorities of the Highest Court in the country is to the contrary. In Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. [1987 (28) ELT 185 (S.C.)], their Lordships of the. Supreme Court have indicated that while considering the Question of limitation, there sho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Ram NaraIn Garg.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(All)75
Om Prakash, J. :At the instance of the CWT, Kanpur, as many as 7 References have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal seeking our opinion on a common question; whether or not reversionary value can be added to the value of the building arrived at rent capitalisation method.2. Whereas, the WTO was of the view that the reversionary value was to be added, the Tribunal took a contrary view that the reversionary value was not be added.3. As in all the References, the question referred to this Court is not only similar but identical, we dispose of all the References by a common order.4. The question whether or not reversionary value is to be added to the value of the building arrived at by having followed the rent capitalisation method, is not res integro. So far as this Court is concerned, a similar question came up for hearing before this Court very recently in CWT, Kanpur vs. Ram Saran Kajriwal (1987) 168 ITR 485 and then this Court took the view that the reversionary value will...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Jagdish Saran Shukla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(All)150; [1988]171ITR694(All); [1987]35TAXMAN393(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the. assesses for asking the Tribunal to state the case on the following questions :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in drawing an adverse inference and in sustaining the addition of Rs. 39,200 on the finding that the assessee had failed tofulfil the undertaking to produce M/s. Chaman Lal Dalbir Singh notwithstanding the changed circumstances that the said dealer had shifted to Kashmir and failure of the authorities below to issue commission or summons for the examination of M/s. Chaman Lal Dalbir Singh for which the assessee had made specific request ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below should not have issued summons to Delhi party specially when his address as well as his control licence was made known by the appellant and also because the appellant had agreed to bear all the expenses i...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwant Stone Works Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All121
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution seeks Mandamus directing the Collector, Mirzapur, to grant mining lease to the petitioner for mining operations of stone chips, their crushing, transportation etc. An application was made by the petitioner for the purposes aforesaid under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, The petitioner's grievance is that the application has been unduly and unjustifiably kept pending by the Collector on the ground of prohibition to the granting of leases alleged to have been imposed under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act 69 of 1980), hereinafter referred to as '1980 Act'. 2. In 1957, the Parliament in order to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals under the control of the Union, enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The intention was that the mineral wealth of the country should be conserved and should be worked properly without waste and by perso...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devi Dayal Aluminium Industries (Pvt.) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)7; [1988]171ITR683(All); [1987]35TAXMAN484(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for calling the following questions of law said to arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, New Delhi :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (2) Whether the order of the Tribunal is wrong and perverse inasmuch as it ignored the Tribunal's finding in the quantum matter and unreasonably gave a higher appreciation to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which order had already been criticised by the previous Bench of the Tribunal, inter alia, in these words : ' Actually, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given no reason worth the name to delete the addition of Rs. 32,000 ?' ' (3) Whether the order of the Tribunal is wrong and perverse inasmuch as it gives no reason for its finding that the Departmen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hind GraIn Suppliers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR681(All); [1987]35TAXMAN342(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. By this application, the Commissioner of Income-tax requires us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in arriving at the finding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not be justified with reference to the first addition of Rs. 45,112 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deciding that the proviso to Explanation 1 appended to Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted in the case of the second addition of Rs. 29,298 on account of discrepancy of 470 tins of vanaspati . 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deciding that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) does not result in the imposition of penalty for the third addition of Rs. 13,600 on account of shortage...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR675(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the loss of Rs. 11,839 on the sale of U.P. State Development Bonds was allowable under Sections 28 and 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The facts, briefly, are that the opposite party had purchased U.P. State Development Bonds for the amount aggregating to Rs. 3,23,190. The contention of the opposite party, M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., was that the said bonds had been purchased at the behest of the district authorities and that it was necessary for the mill to maintain the goodwill and good relations with the district authorities, for otherwise the business of the sugar mill would have suffered. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the purchase of the bonds was connected with the business of the assessee. The mill, when the crushing season...
Tag this Judgment!Jafri Begum and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC1
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad, dated September 9, 1982, allowing the application made by the appellants for grant of compensation.2. The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (respondent No. 2) has preferred a cross-objection.3. Brief facts are that Bus No. URG 6017 in which the appellant No. 1's husband (Imamual Hasan) was travelling met with an accident on Grand Trunk Road in village Kasiya police station Kokhraj district Allahabad on December 29, 1980, at about 8 a.m. The accident took place as the bus driver lost control on account of its high speed and dashed the same against the tree, as a result of the accident Imamual Hasan received serious injuries resulting in his instantaneous death The appellant No. 1 (Smt. Jafri Begum), who is the widow of the deceased Imamul Hasan, and was aged about 25 years at that time, along with her two sons, arrayed as appellants Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Zulqarnain and M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »