Allahabad Court August 1987 Judgments
Sharpedge Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: [1989]73STC90(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. Raising a small but interesting question, this revision is filed by the dealer, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Erasmic blades for the assessment year 1979-80 against the Tribunal's order dated 28th February, 1986.2. The sole question for determination in this revision is whether the turnover of Erasmic blades is liable to be taxed as an unclassified item at the rate of 8 percent under Section 3-A(1)(e) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act, 1948') or at the rate of 10 per cent as classified item under the entry 102 of the Notification No. ST-II-10853/X-6(23)-79 dated 7th December, 1979, which runs as follows :Articles made wholly or principally of stainless steel, except surgical instruments.3. The assessing officer in the reassessment order took the view that the product of the assessee, i.e., the Erasmic blades, is covered by the aforesaid entry 102.4. The submission of Sri Bharatji, learned counsel for the assessee, is that the blad...
Tag this Judgment!Luxco Electronics Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(33)ELT641(All)
1. The petitioner had come earlier to this court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was disposed of by us on 22nd May, 1987 [1987 (31) ELT 883 (All.)]. The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner's plea for dispensing with the requirement of deposit of duty etc. of a precondition for consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order made by the Collector, Central Excise, had been considered in accordance with the law. The specific grievance of the petitioner was that the plea that the demand was barred by limitation, they had taken specifically, had not been considered by the Tribunal even in a prima-facie before passing the orders on the application made by the petitioner. While allowing the writ petition we had directed the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to re-consider the petitioner's application in accordance with the law. We had observed that the question about the demand being b...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Bharat Traders
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD68(All.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue and the grievance is regarding the reduction in the penalty imposed for concealment of income. The plea of the learned Departmental Representative was and he relied on the order of the ITO that the assessment was made at a figure of Rs. 3,01,580 against the returned income of Rs. 1,38,490. The issue in the quantum appeal travelled before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its decision dated 31st December, 1982 confirmed the addition. Since these very items are involved and the finding of the Tribunal also was that a cash of Rs. 75,000 was introduced by the assessee spuriously, the learned CIT(A) was wrong in reducing the quantum of penalty.2. We have heard the learned Sr. Departmental Representative and are deciding the issue exparte as the assessee did not turn up for argument on the date of hearing. The point raised is that the assessee had not adduced any additional evidence during the penalty proceedings and at the same time the ITO also had no ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Bareilly Rope Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC241(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. Raising a very interesting question whether or not coir yarn is covered by the entry at serial No. 1 of Notification No. S.T.-II-8224/X-9(213)-77-U. P. Act XV/48-Order-79 dated 31st August, 1979 published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 31st August, 1979, which is reproduced below :Serial No. 1. Yarn of all kinds except cotton yarn but 2 per cent.' including 'desi kati'this revision is filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order dated 22nd March, 1986.2. The assessee deals in coir yarn, niwar, dori rope, etc. The assessing officer taxed the turnover of coir yarn at the rate of 7 per cent treating that as unclassified item. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) [for short 'the A. C. (J)'] affirmed the order of the assessing officer.3. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the item, namely, coir yarn, is governed by the aforementioned notification and, therefore, that deserves to be taxed as classified item at the rate of 2 per cent only. ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Controller of Estate Vs. Late Shri J.P. Srivastava
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)29ITD98(All.)
1. The appeal is by the revenue in which the first ground of appeal is that the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty erred, in cancelling the assessment of estate duty on the ground that the delay in completion of the assessment was not mainly attributable to the assessee. The other grounds of appeal relate to the reduction in the value of different items of properties comprised in the principal value of the estate.2. In the estate duty assessment order passed by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, it has been mentioned that the deceased Sir J.P. Srivastava died on 15-12-1954. The estate duty return was filed showing a minus figure of Rs. 3,85,534 and the same was filed on 28-12-1955. Time for filing of the return was extended up to 30-11-1955. Amongst other filings, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty noted that in the earlier years, the case was represented by Shri A.B. Tandon, C.A., A.L. Talwar, C.A. and Shri I.S. Nigam, Accountant and Authorised Representative for the acco...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal and Padam Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(All)55; [1988]171ITR241(All); [1987]34TAXMAN418(All)
K.P. Singh, J. 1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions of law and fact for consideration and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners in the above two writ petitions along with Rajendra Kumar and Rakesh Prakash Agarwal were partners of a firm known as M/s. Raghunandan Prasad Manoharlal. The aforesaid firm was dealing in gold and silver ornaments and bullion. The petitioners in the two writ petitions were partners of the firm in their capacity as karta of their respective Hindu undivided families. The assessment year under consideration is 1981-82. The firm was dissolved on January 28, 1981. The firm was assessed to an income of Rs. 8,48,063, in the beginning as an unregistered firm but, on appeal, the amount was reduced to Rs. 2,65,005 as is evident from annexure II attached to the writ petitions. It appears that through annexure III attached to the writ petitions, the petitioners have indicated that the firm owns property, a three-storeyed b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raza Textiles Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(All)154; [1988]169ITR258(All); [1987]35TAXMAN377(All)
R. K. Gulati, J. 1. These two connected applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act ' for short), have been filed by the Revenue, praying for a mandamus directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, to refer the questions set out below for the opinion of this court. These questions arise out of a consolidated order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, deciding two cross-appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the Revenue, in respect of the assessment year 1981-82. The questions referred to in these applications are similar and identical in nature and are to the following effect:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring the fact that the assessee had not established the genuineness and nature of the payment and, as such, had failed to discharge the onus for deduction of the payment in computing the business income ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Shankar Vs. Addl. District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Deputy Di ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All39
ORDERD.S. Sinha, J.1. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no counter affidavit having been filed by the standing counsel, as directed by this court on 10-6-1987, this petition is bound to be admitted. This contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived. The petition has to stand on its own legs. Mere failure on the part of the other side in filing the counter affidavit is no ground for admission of a writ petition. The second ground urged is that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-5-1987 does not give any reason and, therefore, it is bad. This ground also is not sustainable. From the perusal of the order itself it transpired that reasons for the dismissal of the application are contained in the order. Nothing else has been pointed out by the learned counsel to show that impugned orders suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The petition is...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar and anr. Vs. Rashtriya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashiks ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All131
ORDER1. The Union of India has started a Scheme known as Navodya Vidyalaya thereinafter to be referred to as 'the Vidyalaya') under which schools are being established. Students are admitted to the Vidyalayas from Class VI. The Scheme provided, that 75 per cent of the seats will be reserved for the students from the rural areas and the quota of the students having an urban domicile will be 25 per cent.2. The two petitioners applied for admission to the Entrance Test in the Vidyalaya at Kanpur, but have been denied admission on account of the fact that they did not attend Class III in a recognised Primary School in a rural area.3. Since very young children are involved, giving time for filing a counter-affidavit will delay the matter. We are also proceeding on the basis that the facts stated in the writ petition are correct.4. The petitioners' case is that they studied at home up to the educational standard for Class III and they were admitted in Class IV in the Basic Primary Pathshala,...
Tag this Judgment!Khub Chand (Deceased by Lrs) Smt. Katori Devi Vs. Ram Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All64
A.N. Dikshita, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-decree-holder against the judgment and decreedated 8-7-68 passed by Sri Brahm Kishore, Addl. Civil Judge, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No. 464 of 1967 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28-10-1967 passed by Sri V. S. Kulshrestha, Munsif Koil Aligarh was set aside and the case was remanded to the latter.2. In brief the facts are that the appellant Khub Chand filed a suit (No. 564 of 1950) against Babu Lal and 13 others including Ram Chand respondent (defendant-judgment-debtor) for partition and declaration for separating his one-third share in the property. A final decree was drawn up on 6-9-63 in accordance with the joint statement of the parties recorded on 9-9-55 read with Amin's map. Consequent to the preparation of the final decree present appellant filed an execution application on 14-4-66 which was registered as Execution Case No. 101 of 1966 for delivery of possession over his separate Kura. The appellant p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »