Allahabad Court November 1987 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. ShamshuddIn Manzoor Haque

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [1988]172ITR696(All); [1988]36TAXMAN128(All)

Om Prakash, J. 1. In this application made under Section 265(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax prays that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court as many as three questions mentioned in the application.2. The Income-tax Officer noticed that the capital accounts of the partners in the books of the assessee-firm were credited with certain amounts. The explanation of the assessee was that the amount so credited in the capital account of the two partners had been received by them as gift from the Bombay parties.3. Later, the Commissioner of Income-tax, exercising jurisdiction under Section 263, set aside the order for the assessment year 1981-82 of the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the said order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, inasmuch as no enquiry into the genuineness of the gift was made by the Income-tax Officer and he, therefore, directed the Income-tax...

Mata DIn Yadav Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1988All148

ORDER1. We have heard both the counsel for the parties, but find no merit in this petition.2. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an existing operator, is that the application filed by the respondent 4 for the grant of temporary permit should have been rejected as it did not disclose any purpose contemplated under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. The submission is devoid of any merit. In the application the respondent No. 3 had generally mentioned the need of the travelling public as the purpose for which the grant was sought. It is true that in the application the purpose mentioned was not very specific. But the impugned order clearly states the purpose for which temporary permit was being granted in favour of respondent 2. It refers to the Government Order dt. 25-3-1987 issued under Section 43A of the Act under which directions were issued to the S.T.A. and R.T.A. to increase the strength on routes where there has been no increase in the stag...

U P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Devendra Pratap Singh

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: I(1988)ACC477

N.N. Mithal, J.1. The claimant respondent was a passenger in the ill fated Bus No. UTA 868 belonging to the appellant Corporation which met with an accident at about 5 PM on 3-10-1977 while proceedings from Khalilabad to Basti. At the relevant time it was being driven by Lal Ji Tewari and Lal Bahadur Singh was its conductor. The Bus, according to the claimant, was being driven in rash and negligent manner as result of which it went out of control and hit against a tree at the far left and of the road resulting in serious injuries to the claimant. Against a claim for Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- have been awarded by the Tribunal. The Corporation has felt aggrieved and has come up in appeal.2. According to Sri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Corporation, the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving nor compensation awarded was legally justified.3. From the evidence on record the Tribunal has found that the driver was tired and over-worked when he was aske...

Mannoo Lal Kedar Nath (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1988)68CTR(All)32; [1988]172ITR612(All); [1988]37TAXMAN174(All)

R.M. Sahai, J. 1. The validity of sale of the petitioner's property in question in lieu of arrears of income-tax and wealth-tax for years 1965-66 to 1975-76 except 1969-70 and 1970-71, on 4th and 18th March, 1986, has been challenged for want of jurisdiction and violation of the provision of law. 2. From the counter-affidavits filed by the Income-tax Officer and the Tax Recovery Officer, it is apparent that the two wings of the Department did not work in co-ordination and due to a communication gap between the two, the sale has been rendered without jurisdiction. What is unfortunate is that all this has happened even though the petitioner has been bringing the correct facts to the notice of the Department from time to time. Sale was held on a recovery certificate issued for Rs. 16 lakhs odd. The demand, however, had been reduced in appeal for different years much earlier and the outstandings of different years admittedly were Rs. 6 lakhs odd only. For instance, the taxable income for 1...

industrial Finance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Steel ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1988All170; [1990]67CompCas412(All)

ORDERA.P. Mishra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The present application has been moved by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, a body corporate established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (Act No. XV of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under Section 30 of the Act for the sale of the mortgaged property under Section 30(1)(b)(c) of the Act and for the appointment of the Receiver over the same.3. According to the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 1 as an incorporated company, on 7-11-1972 took a loan of Rs. 52 lacs for its project for manufacture of mild steel ingots in the State of U.P. The said loan was taken on the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement dt. 5-7-1973. It was entered into between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1. A security for the said loan together with interest etc. was agreed to and a Deed of Hypothecation was also made in favour of petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 1. Similarly a...

Sir Padampat Singhania and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1988)68CTR(All)87; [1988]172ITR292(All); [1988]37TAXMAN1(All)

R.K. Gulati, J.1. By a consolidated reference at the instance of Sir Padampat Singhania (HUF), Lakshmi Pat Singhania (HUF) and Kailash Pat Singhania (HUF), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'):'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the already completed assessment under Section 16(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was valid? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Sections 2(xii), 2(xxiv) and 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,20,474 surrendered or relinquished by letter dated January 17, 1969, was a taxable gift, the value of which was rightly added while making the ...

income-tax Officer Vs. L.P. Naithani

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. The revenue being aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 3rd January, 1985 relating to the assessment year 1981-82 has come up in appeal before the Tribunal and has set up the following grounds : 1. Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law in setting aside the assessment partially in view of the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) and thereby disposing of the appeal piece-meal. 2. That the order of the CIT (Appeals) being erroneous in law and on facts may be set aside and the order of the ITO may be restored.2. The assessee has remained absent at the time of hearing despite service of notice by registered post. As such we have heard the learned departmental representative and the appeal is being disposed on merits.3. By status the assessee is an individual. He is a practising advocate. The assessment was completed on 25th July, 1983. Aggrieved by that assessment the assessee went up in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and challenged the correctness of certain disallowances and comp...

Y.P. Mehrotra and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: II(1988)ACC45; (1993)IIILLJ581All

S.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioners, who are the employees of the Synthetics and Chemicals Limited, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the Company), have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayers that the proceedings in a certain criminal case pending in a Lower Criminal Court may be quashed and the State of Uttar Pradesh may be directed not to launch any criminal proceedings under the normal law of the land but only under the provisions of the Factories Act in connection with the death of one of the employees of the Company.2. The material averments are these. On or before 28th January, 1987, one Puran Singh was working in the Trade Waste Area of the Company's rubber plant. On the said date he was found dead at the top of the Trade Waste Area cable. The petitioner No. 1, Sri Y.P. Mehrotra, in his capacity as an officiating Factory Manager sent telegrams to the District Magistrate, Bareilly, to the Assistant Director of Factories, Bareilly and to the D...

Smt. Sona Devi and ors. Vs. the District Judge, Allahabad and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1988All52

ORDERR.P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, Allahabad, dated 8-10-1986 upholding the order passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, dated 23-9-1986.2. The facts of this case are that a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by respondent No. 3 Ram Niwas Gupta against respondents Nos. 4 to 7 before the Judge, Small Cause Court which remained pending for about four years and then the suit was decreed ex parte on 6-8-1986 in favour of the respondent No. 3. Thereafter respondent No. 3 put the decree in execution and moved an application for obtaining possession: therein. Respondent No. 3 also requested for police help which was allowed by the execution court and then proceeded to execute the decree. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 21, Rules 35, 97 and 99, Civil Procedure Code claiming that 'they were in possession in their own right and not as sub-tenants and are not bound by the decree passed in Suit N...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Metal Works

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [1988]172ITR173(All); [1987]35TAXMAN506(All)

Om Prakash, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax for asking the Tribunal to state the case on the following questions :1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,68,410 despite the fact that the appeal of the assessee was earlier dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on the bank letter filed by the assessee before the Tribunal and ignoring the letter of the bank dated February 7, 1982, certifying the physical verification of stock worth Rs. 3,80,446 as on February 28, 1979 ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,68,401 ? 4. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are not contrary to its own findi...