Allahabad Court January 1989 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.
Kanhaiyalal Damodar Das Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]73STC404(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. By means of this revision the assessee has challenged the order dated 31st August, 1987, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. For the assessment year 1975-76, proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated and a best judgment assessment was framed. On appeal one of the points that was accepted by the first appellate authority was that there had not been valid initiation of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, he allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. By the impugned order the Sales Tax Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and upset the view taken by the first appellate authority. It has held that proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were in order. Thereafter, it has considered the matter regarding quantum of assessment also.2. I have heard learned counsel for the p...
Gupta Footwears Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC31(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. Aggrieved against the order dated 11th January, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to the footwear business for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee has preferred this revision.2. Heard the parties and considered the facts.3. In this case the dispute primarily relates to the sales of shoes of Rs. 56,000 sold from 1st May, 1979 to 31st March, 1980. It may be mentioned that up to 30th April, 1979 footwear was taxable at the point of sale to the consumer. The assessee was a registered dealer and purchased footwear against form 3-A. With effect from 1st May, 1979 the turnover of footwear became taxable at the point of first purchase. The assessee had a stock of Rs. 52,657 on 1st May, 1979. The stock of footwear was evidently purchased against form 3-A. Out of this stock sales were estimated at Rs. 46,000. All the sales were made to unregistered dealers. There was no first purchase of these goods under Section 3-D(1) as the purchases had taken place prior ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]73STC319(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. These seven revisions arise out of a consolidated order dated 13th October, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal.2. A controversy arose between the parties as to whether freight is liable to be included in the turnover of the assessee. The matter was referred to the High Court in a reference. The High Court by an elaborate judgment dated 30th October, 1978 held that in view of explanation II(i) of definition of 'turnover' as contemplated by Section 2(i) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the fact that the assessee did not recover any freight from the purchasers, the said amount of freight cannot be included in the turnover. In compliance with the aforesaid opinion of the High Court the revising authority passed an order dated 6th June, 1979 for refund of the tax on the said amount of freight which was already paid by the assessee. Accordingly the assessee made applications before the assessing authority for refund which was refused. On appeal the first appellate authority ...
Sagar Mal NaraIn Das Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC266(All)
R.R. Misra, J.1. By means of this revision the assessee has assailed the order dated 30th July, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 1973-74.2. I have heard learned counsel for the assessee. As a result of survey dated 16th December, 1976 certain account books were seized and it was found that the assessee was carrying on transaction outside the books. Besides this, the account books of the assessee did not record transaction relating to 1,299 katta of gur and 198 balti of gur in its account books. In view of the aforesaid facts found by the authorities below, I find that the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in affirming the rejection of account books.3. As regards the quantum of determination of turnover also, I find that the same is based on the basis of materials on record and is not arbitrary. Therefore, there is no error of law involved in this regard also.4. Third submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that in the year in question, the...
Moonna Lal and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR320(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that some questions do arise from the Tribunal's order dated March 31, 1987 and we, therefore, direct the Tribunal to make a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the delay could be deemed to have been condoned even when there are no provisions for deemed condonation of the delay under Section 246 (sic) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the additional ground taken before it at the time of hearing ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals.) made correctly computation of the capital gain without assigning any reasons for not allowing any cost of improvement to the assessce ?' 2...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Dulari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC7
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Fatehpur, awarding Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of decree as compensation to the respondents. Out of these Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- had to be paid to the widow and her daughter and Rs. 10,000/- to the mother, minor sister and minor brother of the deceased Ram Pratap.2. Ram Pratap, who had passed B.A. and was doint B.T.C., was going by a cycle on 4th March 1977 at about 3 p.m. when all of a sudden he was crushed by the vehicle UTC 9630 and died in the hospital. On his death a claim petition was filed by the widow of the deceased, his daughter and other relations. The claim was for Rs. 60,000/- on the assertion that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle aforesaid and that the claimants/respondents had suffered to t...
Jai Prakash Guar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR115(All)
1. In proceedings under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the applicant called upon the Tribunal to state two questions of law for being considered by this court. One of the questions which the Tribunal was required to refer was whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in reopening the relevant assessment under Section 147(b) of the Act. The Tribunal felt that this question need not be referred.2. The controversy with regard to the question sought to be referred to this court centres round the computation of capital gains with regard to jewellery. It appears that the assessee made an application to the Income-tax Officer that the jewellery was acquired during the period 1963 to 1975 and the capital assessed has to be computed as if the same came into existence on April 1, 1973, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court. It also appears that an audit report was received and thereafter the Income-tax Officer passed an order reopening the assessment under Section 147...
Jageshwar Dayal Kapoor Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR126(All)
1. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that a question of law does arise from the Tribunal's order dated July 2, 1987, and we, therefore, direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal wus right in holding that the two assessments for the two broken periods were not justified and only one assessment ought to have been made ?'2. The application is partly allowed....
Chanan Lal Dhingra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR226(All)
1. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that a question of taw does arise from the Tribunal's order dated May 8, 1987. We, however, reframe the question and direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following reframed question for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,33,800, Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 3,043 in the hands of the asses-see 2. The application is accordingly allowed in part. ...
Rajan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR153(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that question No. 2 as proposed by the assessee, is a question of law and that that does arise from the Tribunal's order dated April 23, 1987. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in remanding the case when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition made on the basis of the report of estimate of stock found by the inspector ?' 2. The application is allowed partly. ...