Allahabad Court July 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. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(All)78; [1988]170ITR449(All); [1987]34TAXMAN153(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to he referred as 'the Act'), has been filed at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow,2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application are that for the assessment year 1976-77, M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., the assessee, was originally assessed to income-tax by an order dated February 6, 1980. The Commissioner of Income-tax, being of the opinion, that the said assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and purporting to exercise his power under Section 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment order with a direction to the assessing officer to make the assessment de novo. Being aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated May 2, 1983, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and in its place restored the assessment order passed by the assessing...
income-tax Officer Vs. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD448(All.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT (A) for short] cancelling the penalty of Rs. 3,50,000 which had been imposed by the Income-tax Officer (ITO for short) Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 1978-79.2. The assessee is a company, having business of manufacture of torches, miniature bulbs and dry cell batteries. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 1978-79 on 31-8-1971, declaring an income of Rs. 10,75,942, subject to set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to earlier years. The ITO, while processing the assessment, found that the assessee had made a wrong claim for depreciation. In all, the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs. 21,36,791 on the assets of the battery unit. The factory had worked in all for 301 days. It had worked in double shift for 300 days and in triple shift for 154 days. The extra shift allo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagannath Prasad Nankoo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(All)143; [1987]168ITR52(All); [1987]34TAXMAN156(All)
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad, this reference has been made. The following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after April I, 1976 ?'2. M/s. Jagannath Prasad Nankoo Prasad, the assessee, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 47,605. The Income-tax Officer, however, assessed the income at Rs. 83,708. On appeal, the Tribunal reduced the income to Rs. 54,111. On February 22, 1974, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and consequently w...
Akhilesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ620
ORDERS.I. Jafri, J.1. This is an application for bail on behalf of Akhilesh Singh applicant under Section 439, Cr. P. C. in Crime No. 64 of 1987 under Sections 147, 148, 307, I.P.C. and under Section 3 of U. P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act. 1986.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Girdhar Malviya, the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the application for bail moved under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the applicant is not maintainable and the High Court or any other Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the bail application against an order dismissing the bail application by the Special Judge. It was further submitted by him that U. P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 U. P. Act No. 7 of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a Special Law enacted by the State Legislature making provisions for the prevention and for dealing with Gangsters and Anti-social Activities and for matters connected therewith o...
Reshma Begum and ors. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC444
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by Smt. Reshma Begum, widow of the deceased Mohammad Hanif and by his four minor children.2. The accident occurred at about 6.15 P.M. on 15-7-1976 near octroi post Rampur Road, Bareilly when Mohammad Hanif was returning by Motor Cycle U.P.M. 9948 from the factory M/s Camphor and Allied Products Clutterbuckganj, Bareilly. Near the octroi post, the bus belong ing to the U P. State Road Transport Corporation was coming from the opposite direction. It was being driven by Zahid Ali. The appellants claimed that as the bus was being rashly and negligently driven, it collided with the motor cycle of Mohammad Hanif as a result of which Mohammad Hanif died instantaneously at the spot. The appellants alleged that on account of the death of Mohammad Hanif they were entitled to get compensation.3. The petition was contested by the U.P. State Road Transport corporation on the ground inter alias that the a...
Raj Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(All)146; [1988]170ITR119(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act, 1961'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which at the instance of the assessee has referred to this court the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the registration already granted to the assessee was rightly cancelled under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee, a firrn constituted under a deed of partnership dated December 29, 1967, came into being with effect from December 11, 1967, with the following constitution :ProfitLossP.P.Chand Ram2830Indra Prakash2837BhagwasDas1626Pawan Kumar28Nil3. Pawan Kumar was a minor when the aforesaid deed was executed and, therefore, he was simply admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He was not liable to share losses.4. The firm was granted registration for the assessment year 1969-70 and the registration was continued for the next follo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›