Allahabad Court November 1990 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.
Leela Movies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR113(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The question referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as follows :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the cinema building did not constitute a 'plant' within the meaning of Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding that depreciation at 10% could not be claimed in respect thereof?'2. An identical question was answered in favour of the assessee by a Bench of this court in S. K. Tulsi and Sons v. CIT : [1991]187ITR685(All) .3. Following the said decision, the question referred herein is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
NaraIn Das JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR126(All)
1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following four questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty proceedings under Section 18(2) were validly initiated ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no defect in the notice issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 18(2) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty could be imposed for default under Section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act although proceedings were started under Section 18(2) only ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in imposing the penalty without affording an opportunity of being heard in spite of a specific request ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year concerned is 1971-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indralok Picture Palace
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR730(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The assessee is a firm. It consisted of seven partners. The partnership was constituted under a deed of partnership dated February 14, 1971. One of the partners, D. K. Agarwal, died on September 25, 1971. Clause (ii) of the partnership deed provided that the death of a partner shall not result in the dissolution of partnership and that it shall continue notwithstanding the death. Accordingly, the firm continued. A new partnership deed was executed on January 20, 1972, by the remaining partners. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed two returns--one for the period July 1, 1971, to September 25, 1971, and the other for the period September 26, 1971, to March 31, 1972. The Income-tax Officer was, however, of the opinion that it was only a case of reconstitution of firm and, accordingly, clubbed both the periods and made one assessment. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer whereupon the assessee carried t...
Ram Nazar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1698
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. In this transfer application under Section 407, Cr.P.C. a short question arises to decide which the necessary factual background needs to be mentioned.2. There is a shop known as Janta Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. situated in Rudrapur, district Deoria, Ram Nazar Tiwari, applicant was allegedly the salesman in the said Bhandar and one Gaya Prasad Dwivedi was said to be the Secretary. On 16-2-1988 an F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant against Gaya Prasad Dwivedi which gave rise to the case Crime No. 444 of 1990 of Police Station-Rudrapur. After investigation the police has admittedly filed a charge sheet under Section 380, I.P.C. against Gaya Prasad Dwivedi which is now pending in the court of I Judicial Magistrate, Deoria. Another F.I.R. has been lodged by Gaya Prasad Dwivedi through the Co-operative Cell at Gorakhpur under Section 409, I.P.C. against Ram Nazar Tiwari, applicant. After due investigation the said case has been charge-sheeted by the police ...
Khem Karan and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2138
H.C. Mital, J.1. Of the above named appellant Gulta has died during the pendency of the appeal, hence his appeal stands abated.2. Khem Karan appellant stands convicted and sentenced Under Sections 302 and 323 both read with Section 114, IPC to life imprisonment and six months R.I. respectively. Appellant Tukman stands convicted and sentenced under Sections 323 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC to life imprisonment and six months R.I. Appellant Gulta (now deceased) stood convicted and sentenced Under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC to life imprisonment and six months R.I.3. According to the prosecution in brief on 22-10-1976 at about 7 a.m. when Devi Ram (deceased) was coming from his field with fodder for the cattle, in the way he met all the three appellants working in their field and on seeing them he asked them why did they unnecessarily indulge in abusing the children, whereupon Khem Karan exhorted his sons, the two appellants Gulta and Tukman 'Maro Saleko Aaj Yah Ba...
Shabir HussaIn and ors. Vs. Abdul Rehman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ858
V.N. Khare, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders dated 13.10.1987 and 29.10.1987 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bijnor im Misc. Case No. 43 of 1987.2. Brief facts of the case are these:One Aslam, who was son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, died on 9.12.1986 in a bus accident. It is alleged that the bus was driven by respondent No. 1 Abdul Rehman which was owned by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bijnor Depot, Bijnor. The petitioners filed claim petition against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for award of statutory compensation. The defence of the respondents was that their bus was not involved in the said accident. Simultaneously, the petitioners preferred a claim under Section 110-A of the Act also before the Tribunal. The Tribunal firstly recorded the evidence of the petitioners in the claim petition under Section 92-A of the Act and...
Ravi Pandey Vs. Meena and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC391
V.N. Mehrotra, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This revision is directed against the interim order dated 9-3-89 granting maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month for the lady and Rs. 50/- per month for the child. It was contended that the learned Magistrate did not give adequate opportunity to oppose the application for interim maintenance moved on behalf of the opposite party Smt. Meena.3. I have percesed the order passed by the Magistrate : The learned Magistrate has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month for lady and Rs. 50/- per month for the child by setting aside the earlier exparte order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month for lady and child. Any how, it will be just and proper to direct the learned Magistrate to give an opportunity of filing the objection and of being heard on the question of interim maintenance also. The applicant may file objection if any, within one month from today and the learned Magistrate may dispose of the same as early as po...
Pratap S/O Chandan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1669
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 22-8-1990 passed by the XIII ACJM, Agra, in Misc. Case No. 8, of 1990 summoning the accused applicants to face trial Under Sections 307/ 323/504, IPC.2. Mohan Singh, respondent No. 2, lodged a first information report on 20-8-1988 at P.S. Kheragarh, Distt. Agra, alleging that the accused applicants assaulted Ram Ratan and his mother Smt. Bhagwati at about 8 a.m. on 20-8-1988. Both the injured, namely, Ram Ratan and Smt. Bhagwati, were medically examined at the Primary Health Centre and injuries were found on this person. Smt. Bhagwati died two days after the incident. A case was registered a Crime No. 108 of 1988 on the basis of the first information report lodged by Mohan Singh and investigation commenced. Subsequently the police of PS Kheragarh submitted final report on 3-11-1988. The complainant Mohan Singh filed a protest petition before the learned magistrate and contended that the final repor...
Durga Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR91(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question is referred :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the loans taken by the assessee had to be deducted while computing its capital for working out the relief due to it under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. It is agreed by counsel for both the parties that, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , this question must be answered in the negative (sic.), i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.The income-tax reference is answered accordingly....
Ch. Harshpati Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR106(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital gains tax was not, to be deducted from the market, value of the assets in arriving at the fair market value of the same for the purpose of the Wealth fax Act ?'2. It is stated by counsel for both the parties that this question has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, following the decision of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1979]119ITR258(All) .The reference is answered accordingly. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »