Allahabad Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Iron Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR296(All)
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the High Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest, amounting to Rs. 10,081 paid to Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal and Shri Mangat Ram Agarwal in their individual capacity could not be disallowed under section, 40(b) of the Income-tax Act when they were partners in the assessee-firm on behalf of their respective Hindu undivided families?'2. This question has been decided by a Full Bench of this court in CIT v. Nitro Phosphetic Fertilizer [1988] 174 ITR 209 . We follow the Full Bench decision and answer the question in the negative in favour of the Department, and against the assessee....
Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR374(All)
1. With regard to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the following question has already been framed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reframed question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the case to the Income-tax Officer for fresh assessments ?' 2. We allow this application and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up the statement of case and refer the aforesaid question of law for the decision by this court. ...
Raghubir Saran and Others Vs. Krishna Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All14
ORDER1. The list has been revised. Nobody appears for the parties.2. In Original Suit No. 36 of 1979, Chudhari Krishna Kumar v. Raghubir Saran, pending in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Moradabad, the applicants, who figure as defendants, raised a plea to the effect that the suit was wrongly valued. They further asserted that the value given in Schedule Ka had been wrongly given. And that the real price given by plaintiff was much less, It was also the plea of the applicants that the value of the property shown by the plaintiff was more than the marked value. In support of the pleadings the applicants did not give any detail. By means of the order dated 25th August, 1982, impugned in the instant revision, the applicants have been called upon to give details.3. Under R.5 of O.VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Court can always, in all cases, order furnishing of a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modi Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR249(All)
1. We have heard Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, and also Sri R. K. Agrawal, counsel appearing for the assessee. After having considered the judgments supplied to us by learned counsel for the assessee and hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that the following are statable questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,000 made by the Income-tax Officer being personal expenses as premium paid by the asses-see-company for accident insurance of the directors and of Rs. 9,000 being provision for conveyance for directors under Section 40(c) read with Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing allowance of the assessee-company's claim in respect of the 10 Ton Furnace Division under Section 80J when the furnace was merely an extension of the existing...
Sri Mangal Das Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1990(45)ELT216a(All)
K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Mangal Das, son of Nihal Chand, resident of Madari Tola, Jaunpur, for a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2, who are Collector and Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, to return the primary gold which was confiscated by the order dated 6th April, 1967. The order reads :-'In view of the foregoing, I confiscate the seized goods to Central Government under Rule 126-M of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Moreover, I give an option to redeem to confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred) only in lieu of confiscation.I also impose personal penalties of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only on Sri Nihal Chand and Rs. 1500/- on Sri Mangal Das under Rule 126-L.(16) ibid.N.B. The option to redeem the goods should be executed within three months of receipt of this order.'2. The petitioner did not deposit the amount mentioned in the aforesa...
Aqueous Victuals Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC530(Allahabad); 1990(45)ELT216(All)
K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Aqueolis Victuals Pvt. Ltd. and Another for allowing the refund to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 10,28,535.62.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise has erroneously granted exemption to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st June, 1986, when as a matter of fact it was entitled to exemption w.e.f. the date of filing of the application i.e. 1st of April, 1986, Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to paragraph 54.17 of the Central Excise Guidelines dealing with the refunds. In this paragraph instruction issued is that the refund application should be decided within three months. We find force in his argument. There is no justification on the part of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise to withhold the decision on the application for refund for such a long time, as in the present case. In the instan...
Mangal Das Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC10; 1989(43)ELT636(All)
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, A.C.J.1. This petition under Article 326 of the Constitution has been filed by Mangal Das, son of Nihal Chand, resident of Madari Tola, Jaunpur, for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2,who are Collector and Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, to return the primary gold which was confiscated by the order dated 6th April, 1967. The order reads :-'In view of the foregoing, I confiscate the seized goods to Central Government under Rule 136-M of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Moreover, I give an option to redeem to confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand five hundred) only in lieu of confiscation.I also impose personal penalties of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only on Sri Nihal Chand and Rs. 1500/- on Sri Mangal Das under Rule 126-L (16) ibid.N.B. The option to redeem the goods should be executed within three months of receipt of this order.'2. The petitioner did not deposit the amount mentioned in the af...
Pawan Distillers Vs. Assistant Collector Central Excise and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)LC428(Allahabad)
ORDER1. M/s. Pawan Distillers, Kannauj, district Farrukhabad, has sought certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28th July, 1988, passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range Kannauj, by which two approved classification lists effective from 1.4.1987 and 1.3.1988 had been amended classifying the refused Burada under sub-heading 3307.90, and further for Mandmus directing the Central Excise Authorities not to demand any duty on refused Burada under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The dispute in the present case is whether refused Burada is liable to payment of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner's case is that it is only a waste and is not a marketable commodity, and that it is not even a by-product, Consequently. no excise is payable on the same. According to the petitioner, the question of payment of excise duty arises where an article is a manufactured product.3. The petitioner on the advice submitted a classification list under...
Chhote Lal Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All27
ORDERN.N. Mitral, J.This is an appeal against an order rejecting the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the ground that the alleged dispute was not covered by the Arbitration clause and that the appellant was not competent to maintain the proceeding.2. In order to have a clear picture of the situation it is necessary to have a few background facts. The appellant along with one Ashok Kumar was carrying on partnership business in the name of M/s. Supreme Traders. On 17-2-1974 the said partnership entered into a building contract with the respondent. However, it is alleged that Ashok Kumar transferred his share in the partnership to the plaintiff Chhote Lal. A suit was filed by him against Ashok Kumar seeking declaration of his rights and on 3-11-1986, the Civil Court declared that the appellant was the sole proprietor of the firm Supreme Traders. Subsequent to it, the present proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act were initiated for referring the dispute...
Chandraveer Singh Vs. M.B. Mathur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ124
U.C. Srivastava, J.1. In view of the decision of learned single Judge of this Court unless something more is done in respect of non-compliance of an interim order which may amount to contempt or not, a reference was made by one of us (U. C. Srivastava J.) to the Chief Justice for referring the matter to the larger Bench in order to decide whether there was recurring effect of interim order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This matter came before us in view of the fact that one of the (U. C. Srivastava, J.) referred the matter for constituting a Division Bench for giving an authoritative pronouncement regarding the effect of interim order passed by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and its contempt in view of anomaly of certain decisions which are not in conformity with each other or could be said to be confined to the facts of that case only.2. The brief facts giving rise to the contempt application are that in writ p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »