Allahabad Court January 1988 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.
Jahanganj Cold Storage Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: (1990)32ITD276(All.)
1. In this appeal the assessee has raised one point only regarding inclusion and taxability of Rs. 75,294. From the orders of the authorities below, it is seen that the ITO treated the above amount being excess rent realised by the assessee as income of the assessee though not credited in the rent account. The assessee was running a cold storage and its activities were governed under the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976, under which the assessee was not permitted to take or receive any amount over and above the charges fixed by the State Govt. under Section 29 of that Act. During the year, the assessee raised the rate of storage to Rs. 18.50 per quintal whereas the charges fixed by the Govt. was Rs. 17 per quintal. The assessee's accounting year started on 1-2-82 and ended on 31-1-1983 for the year under consideration. In 1982, till July, the Govt. did not issue any order fixing the charges for the season which season fell in the previous year relevant to the year under consi...
Rajjan Lal Misra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)25ITD573(All.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the AAC's order dated 23-8-1983, relating to the assessment year 1969-70, whereby he confirmed the penalty for 41 months and directed the "WTO to re-compute the amount of penalty. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal : 1. The learned AAC of Wealth-tax was wrong in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty for 41 months under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1969-70. 2. The learned AAC while sustaining the penalty has failed to appreciate the following facts, inter alia : (a) That since the return of wealth was filed within the time allowed by the learned WTO, no penalty under Section 18(1)(a) was called for. (b) That in any case and without prejudice there was a reasonable and sufficient cause on account of which return could not be filed earlier. (c) That till the filing of the return of wealth, the case of the assessee was not represented by Shri Indrajit Jain, Advocate. (d) That...
Satbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All177
K.P. Singh, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have sought quashing of the same notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby they have been deprived of their plots. Since the same notifications and common questions of law and facts are involved in the cases, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. The counsel for the parties have agreed for decision of these writ petitions on merits at the stage of admission, therefore, we have proceeded to decide these writ petitions under Chap. XXII Proviso to Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court.2. Notification No. 3058/XI-5-85-11(4) Land Acquisition Act relates to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and was published in the Gazette on 11-6-1985 whereas notification No. 3637/XI-5-85-11-(4) Land Acquisition Act relates to notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and was published in the Gazette on 13-6-1985. The notification under Sectio...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)56; [1989]179ITR610(All); [1990]49TAXMAN225(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated August 24, 1987, by which the application moved by respondent No. 2 has been allowed for rectification of the mistake which was apparent on the face of the record, i.e., the earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal passed on February 4, 1987 (annexure 5 to the writ petition).2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the power available to the Tribunal under the Wealth-tax Act is contained under Section 35 of the Act for rectification. It has been urged that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record requiring recalling of the order passed by the Tribunal on February 4, 1987.3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the application moved by the respondent...
Virendra Kumar Avinash Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: [1988]171ITR263(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad Bench) has made this reference to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for seeking our opinion on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in refusing registration to the assessee-firm ?2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the capital contribution of the partners was a necessary requirement of the partnership?'2. The facts, in brief, are that a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Virendra Kumar Avinash Kumar was constituted by Sri Jagat Narain with his two sons, namely, Sri Virendra Kumar and Sri Avinash Kumar, under the partnership deed dated October 17, 1972. The share of each partner in the profit and loss was 1/3rd. The said partnership applied for registration by filing Form No. 11 before the Income-tax Officer on June 14, 1973. The original partner...
U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(All)195; [1988]171ITR640(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. The petitioner, a limited company, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated February 17, 1984, annexure 3 to the writ petition, passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment). Upon a perusal of annexure 3 to the writ petition, it appears that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) while issuing directions regarding audit for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 was of the view that special audit of the account books of the assessee was necessary. He accordingly directed the petitioner to get its account books audited by the special auditor, namely, M/s. S. Vaish and Company.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) acted in contravention of the legal provisions and instructions issued by the Department in directing the petitioner to get its account books audited by the special auditor. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties at some le...
Shambhu Iron Stores Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: [1988]70STC18(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This sales tax revision relates to assessment year 1981-82. M/s. Shambhu Iron Stores during that year were dealing in hardware and machinery parts. The assessee did not admit any taxable turnover although it declared a gross turnover of Rs. 4,04,972.42. The assessment was, however, made on best judgment on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,50,000 which on second appeal was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal this revision has been filed.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. Only two points were canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, whether there was any material on record to reject the account version of the assessee and resort to best judgment assessment. The second contention was whether the Tribunal was justified in saddling the assessee with the burden to prove that it had not imported any goods outside Uttar Pradesh.4. Taking the first contention, the account book...
Parsonal Babulal and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: [1988]69STC363(All)
B.N. Misra, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30th May/1st June, 1987 (annexure 4) passed by the Joint Director of Industries, Agra Region, Agra, respondent No. 2, whereby the five years period of exemption from payment of sales tax previously granted to the petitioner has been reduced to 3 years. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners. It is registered as a small-scale industry with the Director of Industries vide registration certificate dated 26th March, 1984 (annexure S.A. 1) and it is noted in the copy of the certificate of registration that the date of commencement of production was 14th March, 1984. It established the new unit and constructed the factory at 11-A/2-A, Ram Nagar Katra Wazir Khan, Hathras Road, Agra, for production of oil and oil-cakes. According to the petitioner, it set up the aforesaid new unit acting on the specific and clear representation by the State Government providing...
Gaital and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ960
S.I. Jafri, J.1. Gaital, Ram Sajivan, and Smt. Dabri were convicted under Sections 302/149, 148, 452/149, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, two years R. I. and four years R. I. respectively under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code by Sri H. C. Lal, III Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad by his judgment and order dated 4-8-1978. Along with the appellants, Smt. Phool Kali and Suraj Pal were also tried but they were acquitted by the trial Court.2. In the instant appeal, one Panna Lal had been done to death and the appellant Gaital was said to have been armed with axe, Ram Sajivan with pistol and Smt. Dabri with Bugda. Smt. Phool Kali who has been acquitted by the trial Court, was alleged to be bare handed and Suraj Pal was one of the three unknown assailants who were alleged to have been equipped with gun, Sabbal and Farsa.3. The allegations of the prosecution are that deceased Panna Lal was facing trial for the murder of Ram Khilawan and Harish Chandra ...
The Methodist Church in India, Bareilly Vs. the Bareilly Development A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All151
D.S. Sinha, J. 1. In the instant petition the Mathodist Church in India, Bareilly, had challenged the two officers of the Deputy, Secretary, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly, dt. 17-6-1987 and 15-7-1987, true copies whereof are enclosed as Annexure V to the petition, and Annexure III to the affidavit, filed in support of the amendment application respectively. Through these orders the constructions, being raised by the petitioner, have been declared illegal and it has been called upon to demolish them. The events, giving rise to the instant petition, are as follows : 2. On 14-3-1983, the petitioner submittedto the Bareilly Development Authority,Bareilly, hereinafter referred to as theDevelopment Authority, a plan for approvaland permission under Section 14of the U.P. UrbanPlanning and Development Act, 1973hereinafter called the Act for raising certainconstructions at 95, Civil Lines, Bareilly. Theplan was approved and the requisitepermission for raising constructions wasaccorde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »