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.
Smt. Punam Tandon Vs. Director of Inspection and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR405(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference at this stage in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. After an order is passed under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner will have a statutory remedy of filing an objection under Section 132(11) of the Act in case she feels aggrieved by the order passed under Section 132(5). 2. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is rejected in limine. ...
Chemicals and Allied Products Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)238; [1989]175ITR344(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. The question arising for consideration at the inception in this case is whether there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner and, if so, whether we can refuse to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitition on that ground.2. The petitioner, a registered firm, filed a return showing loss for the assessment year 1974-75, but the assessment was made at Rs. 1,00,710 giving set off of Rs. 48,666 shown as loss in the revised return. In the books of the petitioner, cash credits aggregating to Rs. 1,49,360 were noticed and the genuineness of all of them was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer. He, therefore, treated the amount of cash credits as the income of the petitioner from undisclosed sources. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the case to the Income-tax Officer with a direction that he should examine the creditors. On further appeal, the Tribunal affirmed the remand order of the Appellate Assistant ...
Smt. Kusuma Gupta and ors. Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All154
Amarendra Nath Varma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an interim injunction granted by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur, restraining the appellants from either utilizing the machinery fixed in the concern Messrs Banda Khandsari Udyog, Shahjahanpur, or, from doing any business in the name of the same during the pendency of a suit instituted by Smt. Sarla Devi against the appellants and the respondents Nos. 2 to 5. It may be mentioned at the outset that the effect of the injunction issued by the Court below is that a running business has been brought to a, standstill. 2. The suit was filed on December 23, 1985 for dissolution of a partnership firm i called Messrs Banda Khandsari Udyog as well for directing the appellants to render accounts of the firm. Simultaneously with the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order XL, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver over the assets of the firm. By an ex parte order the Court be...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Madhu Chemical Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC421(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. By this sales tax revision the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., has raised the following two questions for the decision of this Court:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, was legally justified to decide the appeal involving the disputed tax of more than Rs. 10,000 by a single Member Bench instead of two Members' Bench ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the assessment to order passed under Section 21, which corrected the inadvertent mistake or omission committed by the assessing authority into the original assessment order was based on change of opinion, so not legally sustainable, without going into the facts of the case fully ?2. In the assessment year 1972-73, S/s. Madhu Chemical Works, Bareilly, was engaged in manufacture and sale of saccharin. Originally under Rule 41(5) the disclosed turnover of the assessee was taxed at 3.5 per cen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›