Allahabad Court September 1987 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Mewa Lal Dwarika Pd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD173(All.)
1. In both the appeals, the revenue have taken identical grounds of appeal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (AAC for short) failed to appreciate that the seized assets were not appropriated against any tax liability but were only retained as a security for any final liability to be created and that the AAC failed to appreciate that the ownership over the seized assets never passed on to the department and, therefore, the seized closing stock was wrongly excluded by the AAC.2. Briefly speaking, the Income-tax Officer (ITO for short) made the assessment for the assessment year 1978-79. for which return was filed originally with the income of Rs. 19,921 which was revised by another return of income of Rs. 40,210. The assessee explained why revised return was filed. It was stated that certain business assets were seized by the department and continued to be in the possession of the department and that while filing the original return, the assessee treated such asset...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Kailash Rice Mills
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD56(All.)
1. The first ground of appeal by the revenue is regarding the deletion of Rs. 6,000. In the assessment order, the Income-tax Officer (ITO for short) has made an addition of Rs. 6,000 being disallowance of manufacturing expenses on account of possible leakage. He noted that the manufacturing expenses of rice milling per quintal were higher than those of the earlier year. The explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable. The assessee took up the matter before the CIT(A) who dealt with the various points at issue. On reasons recorded by him, he found no justification for the disallowance which he deleted. Hence, this appeal by the revenue.2. We have heard both the sides and we have gone through the orders of the authorities below for our consideration. The contention of the revenue is that the basis on which the CIT(A) has deleted the addition was vague and not acceptable particularly when it was not clear as to how the CIT(A) worked out the extra cost, vis-a-vis, the expenses fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mitter SaIn Industries Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC135; 1988(15)LC269(Allahabad); 1988(34)ELT450(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is a writ petition by the petitioner, a Small scale industrial unit, engaged in the business of manufacture of flattened aluminium rods, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order 8th June, 1987 (Annexure '7') passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispense with the pre-condition of the deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act of the amount of duty and penalty.2. The respondent No. 2 passed an order raising a demand of Rs. 24,86,658.74 pertaining to Central duty and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The petitioner then made an application for waiver to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the respondent No. 1 called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the duty within 8 weeks from that date.3. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petition be disposed of finally ...
Tag this Judgment!Banaras Textorium Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(All)191
R. K. Gulati, J. :This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee M/s. Banaras Textorium, Varanasi is a firm engaged in a business of Banarasi goods. In the asst. yr. 1972-73, the assessee made a claim for a deduction of Rs. 26,439, being an amount of bad debt, out of its total taxable income. This claim was disallowed by the ITO and the amount of Rs. 26,439 was added to the income of the assessee. Simultaneously, while completing the assessment order, the ITO, being satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particular of its income, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the minimum penalty imposable exceeded a sum of Rs. 25,000, the ITO referred to the matter for disposal to the IAC, in terms of s. 274(2), as it stood at the relevant time. The IAC, imposed a penalty in the sum of Rs. 26,500, which was sustained in appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following two questions of law fo...
Tag this Judgment!Banaras Textorium Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(All)191; [1988]169ITR782(All); [1988]36TAXMAN79(All)
R. K. GULATI J. - This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The assessee, M/s. Banaras Textorium, Varanasi, is a firm engaged in a business in Banarasi goods. In the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee made a claim for deduction of Rs. 26,439, being an amount of bad debt, out of its total taxable income. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and the amount of Rs. 26,439 was added to the income of the assessee. Simultaneously, while completing the assessment order, the Income-tax Officer, being satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the minimum penalty imposable exceeded a sum of Rs. 25,000, the Income-tax Officer referred the matter for disposal to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in terms of section 274(2), as it stood at the relevant time. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty in the sum of Rs. 26,500 which was...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kamal Kumar Sharma and Etc. Vs. Principal, M.L.B. Medical College, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All32
Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. At the Maharani Luxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi there is a competition between two doctors seeking admission into the Master of Surgery, the General Surgery Course. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 11417 of 1987; Dr. Kamal Kumar Sharma v. Principal M. L. R Medical College, Jhansi and others. The other writ petition, in effect, seeking relief for a direction for being admitted to the same course, is Writ Petition No. 12689 of 1987 : Dr. Rishi Bhatia v. Principal, MLR Medical College and others. The Writ Petitions are being taken up for consideration.2. At the outset this court would like to express dismay at the practice of Clerks and subordinate officials being sent to file affidavits when the respondents arrayed, ought to have answered the writ petition with their own affidavits. In the matter of Dr. Kamal Kumar Sharma, a clerk has answered the writ petition on behalf of the Principal of the Medical College. In the writ petition filed by Dr. Rishi B...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Hasan (Deceased by L.R.) Vs. Matiullah (Deceased by L.Rs) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988All57
A.N. Dikshita, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18-7-85 passed by IV Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1975 by which the judgment and decree dated 9-1-75 passed by III Addl. Munsif, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 17 of 1971 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs for ejectment and possession was set aside.2. Plaintiff-appellant Ali Nasan later on substituted by his heir Nurul Haq filed a suit (No. 17 of 1971) for possession and ejectment of the defendant-respondents on the allegations that premises bearing Municipal No. J-28/55, Agaganj, Jaitpur, Varanasi was the sole property of Abdul Gafoor, Abdul Shakoor, Smt. Fatima Bibi, Shami Ullah and Smt. Nabbubat Bibi. The defendants who were near relations of the plaintiff were permitted to live in the south eastern portion of the said premises as licensees. All the above owners executed a gift-deed in favour of Smt. Saira Bibi daughter of Abdul Gafoor. The defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)62; [1988]171ITR417(All); [1987]35TAXMAN513(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,07,957 had not accrued to the assessee and could not be taxed as its income for the assessment year 1975-76 '2. The relevant facts are as under :3. The assessee is a firm selling chaff-cutting machines at its head office and fertilizer at its branch at Sultanpur. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76, The accounting year of the assessee for the said assessment year was the financial year 1974-75. During the said accounting year, the assessee had maintained its accounts on the mercantile basis. During the course of scrutiny of the account books, the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,07,957 in a post office savings bank account which had been pledged to the District Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ544
ORDERB.L. Yadav, J. 1. By the present revision under Section 397/401 of the Criminal P.C., 1973, (for short the Code), the order dt. 22-11-84 passed by the Munsif Magistrate IV, Jhansi, in proceedings under Sections 494/109/205/498, I.P.C., is sought to be quashed, as the alleged complaint made by Smt. Suman Devi Jain, opposite party 2, who was the wife of Mahendra Kumar Jain, applicant 1, has not filed the complaint to the Magistrate as provided by Section 198 of the Code. The present applicant 1 is the husband of opposite party 2, who has filed the alleged complaint, and applicant 2 is the real brother of applicant 1. Whereas applicant 3 is a relation of applicants 1 and 2. On behalf of the applicants an application was filed before the Magistrate that as the offence under the aforesaid sections was covered by Chap. XX of the Penal Code, hence the complaint should have been made by the aggrieved person, namely, opposite party 2, only to the Magistrate. But she preferred the complaint...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Vs. Bhoop Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC30
A. Banerji, A.C.J.1. Having heard Mr. A.K. Banerji and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Orisa High Court in the case of Govind Nayak v. Shyam Sunder Soni and Ors. 1987 Accident and Compensation Cases page 19. We are not satisfied that this is a fit case for admission and interference of the order of the court below. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 84,000/- to the claimants No. 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased, Ashok Kumar, victim of the motor accident. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, Insurance Co. is that the deceased was a cleaner of the truck and in employment of the owner was entitled to be awarded compensation what is provided in the Workman Compensation Act 1923. We are unable to agree with this view. On the application having been made for compensation to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed in- accordance with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Act and Rules. It cannot import the gui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »