Allahabad Court October 1990 Judgments
Dilip Bhargava Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR621(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner filed a return as an accountable person under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act with respect to the estate of his father, who died on June 25, 1979. Provisional assessment was made according to which duty of Rs. 44,192 was due from the petitioner, Since it was not paid within the time prescribed, proceedings for recovering the same were taken. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner did pay the entire amount on February 2, 1980, and requested that the certificate of recovery issued against him be cancelled. The petitioner says that, in spite of his paying the entire amount, the Collector is proceeding ahead with recovery proceedings in pursuance of the recovery certificate sent to him.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Estate Duty Department, it is admitted that the petitioner had paid up the entire duty due from him, as alleged by him in the writ petition. It also appears that this fact was communicated by the Estate D...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi theatre Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR575(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the cinema building does not constitute 'plant' and, consequently, the assessee was not entitled to depreciation at 10 per cent. on building ?2. This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 74 of 1978 disposed of on September 12, 1990 (S. K. Tulsi and Sons v. CIT : [1991]187ITR685(All) . It may be mentioned that, in this case too, the cinema is located in a well-constructed building fitted with all the necessary fittings and furniture, etc. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Patel Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR382(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is a tendu leaves contractor.He was issued a certificate in Form No. 27C under Rule 37C on account ofwhich he was exempt from the operation of Section 206C read with Section 44AC. His complaint is that the said certificate has been cancelled onAugust 3, 1990, without notice to him and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him.2. In the first instance, we directed the petitioner to apply for copies of the cancellation order and show-cause notice, if any, preceding it. When we were told that they are not being supplied by the respondents, we called upon learned standing counsel to produce the relevant record. Sri B. Dyala has, accordingly, produced the record today. From the record, it is clear that the cancellation was effected without giving a show-cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that the reason for cancellation is that it was issued by the Income-tax Officer of Ward No. 2 wherea...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Prasad Kedar Nath Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR239(All); [1991]55TAXMAN171(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It applied for and obtained registration under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act for the year 1970-71. This registration was continued year after year till 1975-76. In that year, however, the registration was cancelled on the ground that there is no genuine partnership in existence within the meaning of Section 185(1)(a). The main grounds upon which the registration was cancelled are the following :2. According to the deed of partnership, there are three partners and a minor is admitted to the benefits of partnership. Though the share of eachof the partners is specified and it is stated that the minor shall not be liable for any losses, the deed allocates the loss only among the three major partners leaving a balance of 10% unprovided for. In other words, the deed does not make it clear as to what will happen to 10% of losses in case the firm incurred losses.3. The order of cancellation was questioned by the assessee in a...
Tag this Judgment!Harnath Ram Nath and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR213(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, refusing to waive the interest levied by the Income-tax Officer under Section 139(8). The first petitioner is a registered partnership firm white petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are its partners,2. For the assessment year 1973-74, the return had to be filed on or before July 31, 1973. The return was, however, filed on June 12, 1974. For the assessment year 1974-75, the return was due on or before July 31, 1974, but it was actually filed on October 1, 1975. On account of the late filing of the return, interest was levied under Section 139(8) of the Act. It appears that penalty proceedings were also initiated in this behalf. We are, however, concerned only with the levy of interest under Section 139(8) in this writ petition.3. The petitioner applied to the Income-tax Officer for waiving the said interest under Rule 117A of the Income-tax Rules. The Income-tax Officer waived the interes...
Tag this Judgment!Sheelawati and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ253
K.K. Birla, J.1. Both these F.A.F.Os. arise out of the same award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Rajeshwar Prasad Tyagi was employed as Sub-Station Attendant in the Hydel Department, Ghaziabad, U.P. At about 4.00 p.m. on 28.10.1977, while he was going to attend to his duties, he met with an accident by bus No. DHP 2470 driven by Sri Prakash, respondent No. 2, owned by Delhi Transport Corporation and died on the spot. Sheelawati is the widow and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the minor daughters and son of the deceased. They have preferred the claim.3. According to the claimants' case Rajeshwar Prasad Tyagi was coming on the bicycle on the patri of the road from the Meerut side while the bus was going towards Meerut side and the driver tried to overtake a motor cycle by driving at high speed. In the process it hit the cycle and dragged the deceased and the cycle to some distance resulting in the death of Rajeshwar Prasad Tyagi on ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Annapurna Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1990
Reported in: 1991(36)LC602(Allahabad)
1. The petitioner is an agriculturist. She grew tobacco during the year 1976-77. She says that her produce was 2300 kgs. of Garia tobacco and 600 kgs of stalk tobacco. She says that she sold Garia tobacco under proper authority and, therefore, according to Rule 19 she is not liable for the duty. So far as the stalk tobacco is concerned, she says that the house in which it was stored fell down rendering the tobacco totally useless. For that reason, she says, she is not liable for any duty. In spitn of the same the petitioner complains, a recovery certificate was sent by the Central Excise authorities to the Collector Mainpuri for recovering a sum of 7.860/- from the petitioner vide recovery certificate no. 243 of 1986 dated 15.12.1986. Another sum of Rs. 1200/- is sought to be recovered under another recovery certificate bearing no. 245 of 1986 dated 15.12.1986. The petitioner says further that after receiving the demand notice in pursuance of the said recovery certificate she deposited...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Kanodia Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD346(All.)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessees against the orders of the CIT(A) dated 2-9-1987 and 31-8-1987 respectively. As the grounds and facts of both the cases are common, they are disposed of by a consolidated order.This is an appeal by Shri D.P. Kanodia (individual), against the order of the CIT(A) dated 2-9-1987. Although the grounds of appeal have been given out in three pages, but the points in issue are only three additions. The first addition is of an amount of Rs. 24,272, which has been taxed as income from sale of gold bonds u/s 28. The assessee had purchased gold bonds on 9-9-1980@ Rs. 1,290 per 10grams. The total weight of gold (in gold bonds) was 2500 grams. Out of the said purchase of gold bonds, the assessee had sold gold bonds of gold weight 900 grams on 26-3-1981 @ Rs. 1,564 per 10 grams. Consequently, the assessee earned a profit of Rs. 24,272.10 out of the alleged sale. The assessee claimed it as capital gain from gold bonds and thus not liable to tax as the s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajni Bhargava Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR521(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the entireestate passed on the death of the deceased, he being the sole surviving coparcener of the Hindu undivided family at the time of his death ?'2. The relevant facts are the following. The deceased Dr. S. N. Bhargava, died on November 12, 1983. His wife, Smt. Rajni Bhargava, filed a return as the accountable person. Dr. Bhargava was survived by his wife and two daughters. On the date of his death, he held certain separate properties with which we are not concerned. He was also the karta of a Hindu undivided family which held certain properties on the date of his death. He was the sole surviving coparcener. During the assessment proceedings, a question arose whether, on the death of Dr. Bhargava, his interest in the Hindu und...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babu Ram Ramesh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR535(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The following three questions have been stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that the business carried on by M/s. Chandra Katha Industries was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence or by transfer of machinery or plant previously used for any purposes within the meaning of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the manufacturing of catechu is a chemical process and that the Income-tax Officer was justified in allowing depreciation at 10% as against the normal rate of 7% ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »