Allahabad Court February 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.
Moti Lal Krishna Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]79STC389(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order dated May 6, 1987, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Faizabad Bench Camp, Allahabad, relating to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee was carrying on the business of kirana, masala, agarbathi, oil-seed, etc., during the assessment year in question. Books of account of the assessee were rejected on the basis of survey dated July 10, 1980, made by the Sales Tax Officer (Mobile Squad) and best judgment assessment was passed. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the assessment order preferred an appeal under Section 9(1) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, who by order dated October 22, 1982, allowed the appeal in part and reduced the turnover to Rs. 13,76,899. The assessee as well as the Revenue both feeling aggrieved filed second appeals under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal which all...
Maheshwar Dayal Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Member, Board ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1989All206
ORDERK.P. Singh, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of Sri Kaushal Kishore, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad dated 13-6-1984, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, one Sheo Dulare Srivastava, an Arbitrator filed the award regarding partition of immoveable property belonging to the petitioner and opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 and prayed for making the award a rule of Court The prayer of the Arbitrator was rejected by the Civil Judge as is evident from the order dated 18-3-1976 in Civil Suit No. 76 of 1973 contained in Annexure T attached with the writ petition. The Civil Judge passed the following order : -- 'Application for making award rule of the Court is rejected. Objections of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed It is made clear that award is vitiated for want of compulsory registration and proper stamp duty same is impounded. Let the award be sent t...
Ami Chand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR210(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal: '1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was not only inadequate consideration but that the assessee could not have bona fide belief that he had transferred the shares for adequate consideration by interpreting adequate consideration to mean market value of theshares 2. Whether, on the facts and according to the provisions of law, the imposition of penalty is nof erroneous, illegal and excessive ?' 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law for the opinion of this court. 3. The assessee will be entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 125. ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Gayatri Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR449(All); [1990]48TAXMAN199(All)
1. These are two applications filed at the instance of the Revenue under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. A common question raised in these applications is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. In allowing the appeal, the Tribunal followed its earlier order. The question before the Tribunal was whether the assessee had, without sufficient cause, failed to furnish her return within the time allowed and in the manner required by Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act. The returns filed by the assessee for both the years were late. The return for the assessment year 1970-71 was due on June 30, 1970, while for the year 1971-72 it was due on June 30, 1971, but were filed only on November 3, 1973, and June 30, 1972, respectively. From the order passed by the first appellate authority, it appears that the time for filing the returns for the aforesaid two years was extended in view of the circular issued by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Textiles
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(All)241; [1989]180ITR665(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. These are two applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which relate to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Despite due notice, the assessee has not put in appearance and none was present for the assessee when the case was heard today. We have gone through the common order passed by the Tribunal giving rise to these applications and have also seen the other orders passed by the relevant authorities. 3. The reassessment orders which were framed under Section 147(b) for the above two years were set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal following its earlier order for the assessment year 1977-78. From the order under Section 256(1), it is evident that for the assessment year 1977-78, the Tribunal itself has granted a reference to this court under the said provision. However, for the disputed years, references have been refused on the ground that for an intervening year, namely, 1978-79, ref...
Avdhesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR443(All); [1990]48TAXMAN266(All)
1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act relates to the assessment year 1978-79. Basically, two questions have been raised in this application. The first question is whether a sum of Rs: 28,000 which was assessed as income from undisclosed source was liable to be so assessed. According to the assessee, he had earned that amount from agriculture and it was thus exempt from the tax under the Income-tax Act. 2. The concurrent findings of the tax authorities including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are that the assessee had failed to produce any satisfactory evidence about his being engaged in agricultural activities. The further finding is that the assessee was also not able to state to whom the said agricultural produce was sold. Consequent to the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal has held that the sum of Rs. 28,000 was rightly assessed as income from undisclosed sources in the hands of the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opini...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Shadiram Ganga Prasad (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(All)242; [1989]178ITR462(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. These are nine applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which relate to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1976-77. By these applications, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has required that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer the case for the said years for the opinion of this court on three common questions proposed in these applications.2. The Hindu undivided family of Shadiram Ganga Prasad, the respondent assessee, had owned a house property which was used by it for residential purposes. The value of this property was to be determined in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The question which fell for consideration before the Tribunal was as to what should be the 'gross maintainable rent'. According to the assessee, 'gross maintainable rent' should be deemed to be the basis of municipal valuation of the disputed building. This was, however, not accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. In the first appeal, the Commiss...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jahanganj Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(All)214; [1989]178ITR490(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra. The Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer the following question, said to be a question of law, for the opinion of this court:'Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the entire amount of rent receipts is not taxable in the year of collection ?'2. The assessee, during the assessment year 1983-84, was running a cold storage for storing potatoes and other agricultural produce and its activities were governed under the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. By Section 26 of that Act an owner, a licensee, is prohibited from taking or receiving for storage or any other service rendered to the hirer, any amount over and above the charges fixed by the State Government under Section 9 of that Act.3. In 1982, prior to the commencement of the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Bankers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR504(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. Upon hearing the parties, we are satisfied that the following question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'(1) Whether in law and on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that only the net amount paid by the firm to a partner after adjusting interest paid by him to the firm should be disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, irrespective of the fact that the amount of interest is received by him in a capacity other than the capacity in which he paid interest to the firm or is a partner in the firm ?'2. Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the above question for the opinion of this court.3. Parties shall bear their own costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saroj Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR598(All); [1989]44TAXMAN143(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. These are three applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), relating to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 and arise from a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, New Delhi.2. The assessments for the disputed years were made under Section 143(1)of the Act accepting the returned income. These assessments were setaside under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax, to be madede novo, on the ground that the said assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, on appeal by the asses-see, against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal restored the assessment orders and vacatedthe orders passed by the Commissioner. The applications under Section 256(1) having been dismissed, the Commissioner has now come up inthese applications. The following two questions, said to be questions of law,are proposed in these appl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »