Allahabad Court March 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Munnalal Shrikishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(All)45; [1987]167ITR415(All)
A.N. Varma, J.1. Before we deal with the questions raised at the instance of the Revenue, we may dispose of a preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee. Sri B.N. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that in view of the fact that notice of refusal by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax on June 25, 1986, the application filed by it on January 1, 1987, was barred by limitation by six days. It was urged that the period prescribed under Section 256(2) is six months which ought to be taken as 180 days. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Laxmi Rattan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. : [1974]97ITR285(All) , in support of his contention that the limitation should be calculated treating each of the six months as meaning 30 days. We are unable to agree with this contention. The decision cited by learned counsel for the assessee was in the context of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Appellate Collector/Colle ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC341
ORDERA.N. Varma, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for interference at the stage of admission.2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30th September 1986 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division-II, Kanpur disallowing the exemption claimed by the petitioners under notification No. 115/86 dated 1-3-1986 See [1986] 8 ECC St. 204 on the quantity of vegetable products manufactured out of the rice bran oil of edible grade. The order was sought to be challenged on the ground that the same was based on wrong reports as well as on the ground that the petitioners have not been afforded adequate opportunity to represent their case properly. We, however, find that the petitioners have already filed an appeal against that order before the Appellate Collector [Collector, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) ], New Delhi and that the same is still pending. In that appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendra Prasad Singh Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)22ITD44(All.)
1. These are two cross appeals - one by the assessee and the other by the department - and they are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 31-10-1986 for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee in his appeal has taken the following grounds : The WTO was bound under Section 7(4) to adopt the value of Neelbagh Palace at Rs. 3,00,000 being the value adopted by the Settlement Commission on 31-3-1971. 1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the ITO's viewpoint that the decision of the Settlement Commission was binding only for the year(s) covered by the Settlement Application under Section 245C. 2. The learned CIT(A) was not justified on the facts of the case and in law in following the orders of the Settlement Commission for an earlier year without discussing the issue on merits. 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified on the facts of the case in allowing a liability of Rs. 5,82,377 under the head 'Balrampur Tenantry War Loan'. 4. Issue i...
Tag this Judgment!Mahfooz Hasan Vs. Harish Chandra Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All69
ORDERK.N. Misra, J.1. The plaintiff-revisionist filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-opposite party from House No. D-61, Maha Nagar Extension, Lucknow and for recovery of Rs. 2950.00 as arrears of rent from 9-4-1980 till 24-1-1981 and mesne profits from 25-1-1981 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The contention of the plaintiff is that the accommodation in suit was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month. The tenancy started on 9-10-1977 and according to the plaintiff the defendant paid rent up/to the period 8th April 1980 and thereafter stopped payment of rent as he wanted to pay to the plaintiff the rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month only which the plaintiff refused to accept being not the monthly rent of premises. Since the defendant fell in arrears of rent, so the plaintiff issued registered notice dated 20th Dec. 1980 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act through his counsel, which was served on the defendant on 26-12-1980 whereb...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Hari Das Utensil Manufacturers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 1987(29)ELT510(All)
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. M/s. Badri Prasad Hari Das, the Petitioner, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of brass utensils or this the firm procures circles of copper and copper alloys manufactures by rolling mills. These are excisable goods within the meaning of Section 3 read with item 25-A of the First schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On February 26, 1-973 the Divisional Preventive Party, Central Excise visited the business premises of the petitioner upon information that a sister concern namely M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills had passed on copper and copper alloy circles to the petitioner with the object to evade payment of excise duty. The party seized 167 circles of copper and copper alloy weighing 219.450 kgs. Assistant Collector Central Excise issued notice to show cause dated 10th April, 1973 to M/s. Radhey Shyam Rolling Mills to which the latter replied on 27th April, 1973. The Assistant Collector came to the findi...
Tag this Judgment!Harinder Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle (iii) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(All)36; 1987(12)LC417(Allahabad); 1987(32)ELT329(All); [1987]166ITR763(All); [1987]32TAXMAN163(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. On July 16, 1981, a search was carried out by the Income-tax Authorities at the residential premises of the petitioner at New Delhi and his locker at Punjab and Sind Bank in New Delhi. From the residential premises, cash amounting to Rs. 72,500 was seized and from the locker three gold bricks valued at Rs. 15,00,000 were seized. This was followed by a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 15, 1981. The petitioner came forward with an estimate of his income for the assessment year 1982-83. The petitioner estimated his income for the purposes of paying advance tax at Rs. 16,97,000 on which, according to him, the advance tax payable was Rs. 10,97,140. A request was made to the Department that the said advance tax liability of Rs. 10,97,140 may be treated as fully paid and adjusted by appropriating an equal amount from out of the cash and gold already in the...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 1987(29)ELT512(All)
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. M/s. Durga Rolling Mills - a registered partnership firm - the petitioner in writ petition No. 893 of 1977 is engaged in rolling billets into circles on the basis of licence granted by the Central Government in accordance with Section 8 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On February 6, 1972, the preventive officers, Central Excise, visited the mills at about 5.45 a.m. when the Mills was in operation and noticed that certain billets and circles had not been entered in the register maintained to account for the raw material. A notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on June 17, 1972 by the Assistant Collector (Excise) Central Excise. The petitioner objected. On November 21, 1972 the objections raised by the petitioner were overruled by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, who imposed penalty and directed confiscation apart from payment of fine and duty. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector on January 22, 1976. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Jolly Radio and Sound Services Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC225; 1987(31)ELT676(All)
ORDERK.J. Shetty, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 35-G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.2. We have heard counsel and perused the orders. We are satisfied that the question to be referred does arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.3. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to refer the following question with a statement of the case :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any mala fide intent, Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules could be invoked and the penal action taken in terms thereof.'4. The application stands accordingly allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Prem Nath Khanna Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1987
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC306; 1987(29)ELT9(All)
A.N. Varma, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, a licensed gold dealer, was served with the impugned notice under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (the 'Act' in short) within six months of the seizure of the gold ornaments in question from his possession. The petitioner claims the return of the gold ornaments seized from him on 22.4. 1 986 on the ground that no notice under Section 79 of the Act was given to him within six months of the date of the seizure of the gold ornaments.2. That the gold ornaments were seized from the petitioner on 22.4.1986 is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the notice under Section 79 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the seized ornaments be not confiscated was served on him on or before October 21, 1986. The said notice is stated to have been served by refusal by one Subodh Khanna, the brother as well as an employee of the petitioner concern as well as by affixation on th...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1987
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ470All
A. Banerji, J. 1. This is a petition filed on behalf of the U.P. State 'Electricity' Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing of an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 15th March, 1980, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 2. The Board is a statutory Corporation duly incorporated under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Board is engaged in a number of operations for the purposes of generating, distributing and transmitting electricity to various consumers in the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the Board, Electricity Transmission Division, U.P. State Electricity Board, Mirzapur is a new establishment and was created for the purpose of transmission of electricity in a specified area in the district of Mirzapur. The main functions of the Transmission Division are the maintenance of sub-stations and transmission of electricity which involves the construction of electricity lines and mai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »