Allahabad Court February 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.
U.P. Electronics Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD581(All.)
1. The first ground of appeal by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A) for short] erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15,83,209 on account of expenditure incurred on research and development which was claimed by the assessee under Section 35.2. From the orders of the authorities below, it is seen that the assessee-corporation had been set up with the basic object of promoting and developing electronic industries in the State of U.P. It was noted that in the beginning, the Corporation set up a factory at Allahabad and Lucknow to manufacture black and white T.V. sets. With effect from 1-4-1987, certain Corporations were separately established by the State Govt. Factories were transferred to the said Corporations, namely, Uptron, Uptron Digital Systems, Uptron Communications and Instruments Corporation, etc. The claim of the assessee was that all these subsequent Corporations were wholly owned subsidiaries of the U.P.Electronics Corporation, i.e., ...
Rajendra Automobiles Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)25ITD555(All.)
1. The Appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (AAC) confirming the penalty of Rs. 8,000 as levied by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1975-76. In this appeal, there are two questions to be decided. The first one is whether, in the facts of the case, it could be said that the assessee had concealed its income and thus had made itself liable to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). In case the finding is to be given that penalty for concealment of income was leviable then the second question arising for consideration is whether penalty should be levied with reference to the provisions of law in existence at the time when the return, not disclosing true income, had been filed or in accordance with the provisions of the statute, as they existed on the date the order levying penalty was passed. The return was filed on 21...
Manik Chand Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)12; [1988]173ITR662(All)
1. The petitioner, a commission agent, seeks a mandamus that the respondents be directed to permit him to take copies from his hooks of account, as mentioned in annexure ' A ' to the Panchnama (annexure ' I ' to the writ petition). 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he carries on commission agency business in potatoes in the premises of the firm, Sheetalaya Cold Storage, Gaddopur, Phaphamau, Allahabad, and during a search conducted in the premises of the aforesaid firm, the account books of the firm as well as the account books of the petitioner, which were lying in the firm's premises at the time of search, were seized. It is averred in paragraph 24 of the petition that he was informed by the partners of the firm that respondent No. 2 is ready to permit the representative of the firm only to take copies of the books of account on condition that the partners admit in writing, before taking the copies, that all the books of account belonged to the firm. 3. Sub-section (9) of Se...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. L.N. Mittal and R.S. Mittal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR86(All)
V.K. Khanna, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at some length. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the following two questions of law arise out of the Tribunal's order :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision that the valuation of the residential property situated atNehru Nagar, Agra, should ho made in accordance with Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with Rule 1BB without taking note of the fact that Rule 1BB is only applicable to the residential hut let out properties and is not applicable to the properties used for self-residence as it is in the case of the assessee ? (2) Whether the Tribunal have failed to appreciate that Rule 1BB is not applicable to the assessee's cases as it came into operation only on April 1, 1979 ?' The Tribunal is accordingly directed to draw up a statement of the case and ref...
Ambrish Kumar Singh Vs. Raja Abhushan Bran Bramhshah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989All194
ORDERM.P. Singh, J.1. This is defendants' revision arising out of an order dated 12-8-1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Varanasi granting leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. to institute a suit against the applicant.2. On 13-9-1980 Rani Bed Saran Kuari widow of Raja Keshaw Saran Shah executed a deed of endowment whereunder she transferred Taluq Chandauli, Kothi, garden and land to the idols installed in the temple. In order to benefit the ends of her husband and herself she gave a specification of various expenses on the specified objects and further provided that Shlvala, as specified in the deed, shall be maintained for ever and that she and heirs and successors of the Agori Barhar Raj will be bound by the same. A copy of the I deed has been filed as Annexure-1 along with the counter-affidavit. For the purposes of the present case only paras 6 and 9 are relevant whose English translation is being quoted below : (refer to page 119 of the Paper Book prepared by the High Court...
Swastik Gear Ltd. and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(All)213; [1989]175ITR384(All)
Om Prakash, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, public limited companies, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,, 1956, and petitioner No. 3, a partnership firm, are allied concerns of Q.S.T. Groups of Kanpur and petitioner No. 4 is the manager, accounts, of the said group. On January 15, 1987, a search was conducted by the Income-tax Department at different places of Q.S.T. Groups including the premises of the petitioners and various account books were seized for which seizure a memo was prepared and issued to the petitioners. Admittedly, the Department retained the books for a period exceeding 180 days without obtaining the approval of the Commissioner for such retention within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). Thereupon, the petitioners filed this writ petition praying that the retention of the books beyond 180 days is absolutely illegal and the respondents be directed to return the account books forthwith.2. Therea...
Usha Devi Vs. Jagdish Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1239
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1. A criminal complaint was filed by Jagdish Prasad (present opposite party against six persons namely (i) Ashok Kumar son of Bhajan Lal, (ii) Bhajan Lal, (iii) Smt. Shivarati wife of Bhajanlal, (iv) Sunderlal, (v) Bhagwan Dass, and (vi) Jagannath. It purported to be in connection with offences under Sections 494, 406 and 120 of the IPC. The allegations were that Smt. Santosh Kumari daughter of Jagdish Prasad complainant was married to Ashok Kumar on 10-5-1973 according to Hindu rites. From this wedlock a daughter was born in the year 1975-76 but she died immediately after birth. Bhajan Lal father of Ashok Kumar and Shivrati mother of Ashok Kumar as well as Ashok Kumar himself were constantly teasing Santosh Kumari and were pestering her. One widowed mausi of Ashok Kumar also lived in the family and she was responsible for creating ill-will between Ashok Kumar and Santosh Kumari.The accused entered into a conspiracy and settled a second marriage of Ashok Kumar with ...
Sabir Khan Vs. State of U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1245
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1. The lower court's record has been received. The case was taken up after the revision of the list and no one appears for the revisionist. Today is the date fixed for admission.2. I have gone through the record of the court below and the two judgments of the lower courts with the help of the learned Counsel for the State. The points raised in the present revision are:(i) That the applicant was not heard;(ii) That there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.(iii) That Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with.(iv) That there is no proper sanction in the case.3. On the first point, it is clear that repeated opportunities were given to the revisionist to appear before the learned lower appellate court and to have his appeal property argued and he failed to avail of the same. Therefore, the Court below was perfectly justified in proceeding with the matter and in disposing...
Surya Lal Yadav and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1988All202
R.K. Shukla, J.1. Six petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for quashing the impugned notifications (Annexures 3 & 7 respectively to the writ petition) issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. Brief facts of the case are that State of U.P. issued a notification dt/- 7-8-1979 under Section 4(1) of the Act notifying that plots Nos. 66 Aa, 66Ba, 61Aa, 61Ba 8, 10, 67, 12, 9, 13, 41, 42, 43 and 44 situate in village Khaurashwa, pargana Basti East, Distt. Basti were to be acquired for public purpose, namely to construct a colony under Left Bank, Ghaghra Project. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are Bhumidhars of plot No. 66, measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas and 10 Biswansis. Plot No. 61 is a Bhumidhari of the petitioner No. 4 and plot No. 67 is Bhumidhari of petitioners Nos. 5 & 6. It is alleged that a considerable portions of plots Nos. 66 and 61 were covered by residential houses and the...
Madhusudan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1247
ORDERV.P. Mathur, J.1. Smt. Pushpa Mishra who claims to be the wife of Madhusiidan Mishra started proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. through a petition which was numbered as 178/12 of 1983. Her contention was that since 1973 her husband Madhusudan Mishra had neglected to maintain her and she is unable to maintain herself. The husband is living with another woman. He has an income of not less than Rs. 1000/- per month and, therefore, she claims maintenance to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month.2. Contest was put by Madhusudan Mishra and he took the stand that Smt. Pushpa Mishra who was his married wife herself left him and thus caused a desertion and in spite of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights she did not return and ultimately he had to obtain a decree of dissolution of marriage by way of divorce and now she is not entitled to any maintenance from him. It was also said that she was a double M.A. and had been a teacher for some time while now she is working as Manager in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »