Allahabad Court May 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.
Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(All)18; [1989]178ITR496(All); [1987]34TAXMAN130(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated January 29, 1986, passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner (Appeals), Kanpur. By the impugned order, respondent No. 1 has set aside the assessment for further investigation on a limited issue in respect of the petitioner's claim for deduction of an amount as business expenditure representing incentive bonus which had been disallowed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), the Assessing Officer.2. Briefly, the facts are that in the assessment year 1980-81, the petitioner made a claim for deduction of Rs. 12,68,683, out of its gross income being the amount paid as incentive bonus to its employees. It appears that a similar claim was also made, though for a different amount, in the assessment year 1981-82. That claim was disallowed on several grounds by the Assessing Officer including that the claim did not satisfy the requisite conditions of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act...
Jewellers Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD532(All.)
1. The appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 30-3-1985 of the Commissioner (CIT) passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee is a registered firm. Proceedings relate to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81. The business of the assessee-firm is that of Sarrafa. The accounting year relevant to this assessment year had ended on 31-3-1980. The assessee had shown gold jewellery as under :(4217 grams) ... 1,89,181 (5617 grams) ...6,93,879To purchase By closing stock(4770 grams) ... 5,82,583 of gold The assessee had 4369 grams of gold jewellery in the closing stock. Out of this, 4217 grams of gold jewellery were valued for Rs. 1,89,181, which was the value of the opening stock. In other words, out of the total closing stock of 4369 grams of jewellery, jewellery weighing 4217 grams was valued @ Rs. 44.86 per gram. The balance jewellery weighing 152 grams was valued for Rs....
Chandrajit and anr. Vs. Smt. Ganeshiya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1987All360
K.C. Agarwal, J. 1. On a reference made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this application filed by the plaintiff-respondents in the second appeal for acceptance of caveat has been listed before us.2. The controversy in a nut shell is whether Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to appeals. Section 148-A providing for a 'Right to lodge a caveat' has been inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (104 of 1976). Recommending this new provision, the Law Commission in its 54th Report observed :'In order that a party who wishes to indicate his intention to have notice of an intended application by an adverse party may be authorised to do so, a provision for caveat may be, in our view, useful. The relevant provision in the Supreme Court Rules (Order XIX, Rule 2) is intended for cases where no appeal is pending, but a similar provision, modified so as to be applicable to cases where a suit is pending as well as to those where a suit is about to be ins...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1768
B.L. Yadav, J.1. The State of U.P. has filed the present revision under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) against the order dated 15/16-11-1984 15/16-11-1984 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal under section 239 of the Code in a warrant case by which the opposite parties have been discharged for the offence under Sections 409,420,468,471,34 and 109 of the Penal Code.2. Brief account of the events leading to the present application is that in a warrant case under Sections 409,420, IPC. etc. triable by a Magistrate under Chapter XIX (Nineteen) by chance on behalf of the State nobody was present and even though a number of material existed on the record, the order of discharge was passed.3. Shri Harihar. Prasad Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the State urged that the impugned order of discharge under Section 239 was erroneous, inasmuch as it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to have considered the police report and other document...
Banwari Lal Buddha Sen Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC83(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. By means of this revision the assessee has assailed the order dated 27th March, 1985 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal.2. The assessee in the assessment year 1978-79, dealt with in bardana. In their return they disclosed taxable sale of Rs. 1,14,992 on which they admitted their tax liability at Rs. 5,750. The assessing authority accepted the book version of the turnover shown by the assessee. Since the assessee did not pay the admitted tax within the prescribed time, the Sales Tax Officer concerned calculated interest at the rate of 5 per cent per month with effect from 1st April, 1979, till the date of payment. Although the account books were accepted by the Sales Tax Officer yet the assessee filed a first appeal against the amount of interest which the Sales Tax Officer calculated against the assessee. The said appeal was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). Aggrieved against the same, the Commissioner of Sales Tax preferred a second appeal before the Sal...
Anirudha Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1784
Virendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner Anirudha alias Baroo has filed this Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of detention dt. 6-10-1986 and 12-11-1986. He has also prayed for his production before the Court.2. The order of detention dt. 6-10-1986 was passed against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as the petitioner was likely to be enlarged on bail in a pending case against him under Sections 307/153A, I.P.C. and in another case under Sections 4/5 of the Explosives Act registered against him.3. The detention order was served on the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The petitioner asserts that he made representation against it but from the side of the respondents making of the r...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satya Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC192
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. These are two appeals filed against the judgment dated 5th November 1977, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bareilly. First Appeal From Order No. 83 of 1978 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Bareilly, against the award of compensation in favour of the claimant while First Appeal From Order No. 91 of 1978 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in both the appeals.3. On 8th December, 1974, an accident took place between a Mini Bus No. UPO 2131 belonging to Mohammad Iftikhar Ahmad and Mohammad Israr Ahmad against a scooter belonging to one Satya Prakash. The case set up by the claimant was that the claimant was going on a scooter along with one Bal Kishan Agrawal from Bareilly to Ramganga. A mini bus was coming from the side of Ramganga. An accident took place and, consequently, Satya Prakash, the claimant, sustained a fracture in his leg and remained under t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›