Allahabad Court October 1987 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. Modipon Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR658(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue for asking the Tribunal to make a statement of the case on the following questions ;' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting an addition of Rs. 41,500 in respect of charity included in the purchase price of cotton by payment of Rs. 2 per bale of cotton purchased ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,608 representing estimated interest at the rate of 10% on the debit balances outstanding in the accounts of 3 dealers of the assessee ' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, that is fully covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. : [1979]116ITR60(SC) . The Income-tax Officer brought to tax a receipt of Rs. 41,500 being charity recei...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Umesh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR673(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax has filed these applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act for calling for a reference of 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 is justified in upholding the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, when both the appellate authorities ignored material facts and evidence regarding comparative sales ? 2. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are vitiated in law as these have been arrived at after ignoring relevant facts and material discussedin the relevant orders of the two assessment years and also on mis-statement of the facts ? 3. Whether the assessee could be allowed to claim different rates of valuation for similar property before two different Government authorities and whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the value of the land at Rs. 12,0...
Dhrushri and ors. Vs. Suraj NaraIn Chaudhari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC239
N.N. Mithal, J.1. The claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in appeal.2. The deceased was going on a bullock cart from Etawah to his village on the night of 2/3rd December, 1976 when it was hit by a tractor No. UTC 560 coming from the opposite direction which dashed against the cart in which the deceased was riding causing the cart to overturn. As a result one buffalow and the cartman Sri Krishan died. The Claims Tribunal has found that the Tractor was being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident. As against the claim of Rs. 60,000/- a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only has been awarded.3. In appeal the owner of the tractor has chosen not to put in any contest. However, the Insurance Company alone has come forward to oppose it.4. Sri G.R. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken a preliminary objection that the Insurance Company has no right of being heard in opposition to the ap...
Long Life Carpet Industries, Gaharpur and ors. Vs. Smt. Kesar Jahan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All55
ORDERR.P. Singh, J. 1. This First Appeal From Order is against an order dated 12th May, 1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, rejecting the application moved by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 13th January, 1987.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Original Suit No. 72 of 1986 against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 72,250/-. A written statement was filed by the appellants on 20-8-86. On 22-10-86, however, the suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 3, CPC as neither party appeared when the suit was called for hearing. The same day, however, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 9, Rule 4, CPC and the Civil Judge without issue of any notice to the appellants and relying on the affidavit filed by the plaintiff-respondent restored the suit to file on 22-12-86 and fixed 13-1-87 for hearing. On this date, i.e. 13-1-87, the defendants had no notice. The Court passed -an ex parte decree de...
Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad Vs. Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education, A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All127
N.N. Mithal, J.1. The Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad, has come up in appeal against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, allowing the application for issue of temporary injunction by the respondent. By means of injunction, the appellant has been restrained from raising any kind of construction on the land in dispute.2. The facts relevant for the purposes of the appeal are that the U. P. Board of Basic Education hereinafter referred to as the Basic Education Board constituted under Section 3 of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 filed a suit against the Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad and the Nagarpalika Ghaziabad for a permanent injunction on the ground that a Junior High School was situated over a piece of land near Clock Tower, Ghaziabad which was runand controlled by the plaintiff. The Junior High School was established in the year 1885 in a building constructed thereon by the District Board, Meerut. In the year 1972 necessity for additional land was felt for requiremen...
Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Vs. Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ11All
S.K. Dhaon, J. 1. This petition, at the instance of Radhasoami Satsang Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Sabha) stems from a reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This reference was made to the Labour Court, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Court) and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 59 of 1978. The Court disposed of certain preliminary issues and its decision on those issues is being impugned. 2. The controversy in this Court is confined to the question whether the agriculture farm known as M/s. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Krishi Farm (hereinafter referred to as the farm) owned and run by the Sabha is an 'industry' within the meaning of the Act. 3. The material averments made in the written statements filed by and on behalf of the Sabha before the Court are these. The farm is not an activity organised on the basis of employer-employee relationship.The Sabha m...
Harsh Bishnoi Vs. Hashim Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1234
ORDERAmarendra Nath Varma, J.1. This contept petition has been filed on the ground of the alleged disobedience to the following order passed by a Bench of this Court of which 1 was a member:Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the controversy, which eventually crystallised, was whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of his sessional, practical and project completed by him for the year 1983-84 towards 1984-85 examination. It is the case of the petitioner that on a true and proper interpretation of the relevant Statutes and the facts of the present case he should not be compelled to appear at the Sessional, Practical and Project again for the 1984-85 session. The learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that it being a case of re-admission, the petitioner had to appear again at the sessional and practical and submit a fresh Project and that he cannot rely on the Sessional, Practical and Project at which he ...
Hazi Mumtaz Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All28
A.N. Varma, J. 1. The short question raised in this petition is whether the Khaksar Movement falls within the definition of 'Freedom Movement' as defined under Rule 1 of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated January, 10, 1977 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, cancelling an earlier order by which the petitioner was granted a political pension of Rs. 60/- per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 70/- permonth. The order further directed that the amount of pension paid to the petitioner may be realised from him according to law.3. Shortly stated, the petitioner's case is that he participated in the Khaksar Movement which was started, by Sri Allama Inay at uallah Khan Mashriqi some where in 1940. The object of the movement, according to the petitioner, was to liberate the people of India from the British Rule. In connection with that movement, the petitioner remained in Lahore Jail for one month, in Multa...
Jagannath Prasad Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(All)71; [1988]171ITR596(All); [1988]36TAXMAN239(All)
A.N. Varma, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by the applicant was barred by limitation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed an error in refusing to entertainadditional evidence on the technical ground as it was an important piece of evidence to decide the controversy ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could legally be said that the Department had discharged its burden to prove by sufficient material that the service of the assessment orders/demand notices were made upon the applicant on October 24, 1968 ' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and was, during the relevant time, carrying on sarafa business at Moth in the district of Jhansi under the name and style of Messrs. Jagannath Prasa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Suniti Arora
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: [1988]171ITR611(All); [1988]40TAXMAN226(All)
R.M. Shahai, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on behalf of the Revenue. The only question raised is whether in law and facts, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Although learned counsel for the Department has vehemently argued that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, he has failed to satisfy us that the finding recorded by the Tribunal suffers from any error of law. The only reason for imposing the penalty was that the income of some of the minors, who were admitted to the benefits of the partnership, were not included in the return.2. The Tribunal endorsed the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that it was the common belief at the relevant time that the income earned by the minors prior to October 1, 1975, was not to be included in the total income by invoking the prov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »