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.
Samunder Bhan Sadh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)32; [1991]188ITR638(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and was liable to penalty for concealment of income 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable for penalty for default in the original return, he having filed a revised return ?' 2. The assessee, an individual, carries on business in printing powerloom cloth of cheaper varieties and sarees. For the assessment year 1971-72, the concerned year, he filed the return on May 25, 1971, disclosing an income of Rs. 21,400. He estimated his sales turnover at Rs. 4 lakhs whereon he disclosed a gross profit of 9%. He claimed a sum of Rs. 14,600 by way of expenses. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hemantpat Singhania (H.U.F.)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR618(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the transfer of development rebate reserve to the capital account did not amount to distribution of profits within the meaning of Section 34(3)(a) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year concerned is 1967-68. For this assessment year, the assessee claimed development rebate of Rs. 42,178. He created a development rebate reserve as required by Section 33 read with Section 34(3)(a) of the Act. The development rebate was, accordingly, allowed. However, in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer found that the development rebate reserve of Rs. 42,178 created during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1967-68 has been transferred to the capital acco...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mata Prasad and Brother
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR669(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the findings of fact recorded by it, the Tribunal could legally hold that the assessee was entitled to exemption granted by Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in respect of the three transactions mentioned by it in its order ?'2. The assessee is a firm carrying on the business of kirana goods on commission agency basis. The assessment year concerned is 1972-73. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer found that four payments in favour of three parties in sums of more than Rs. 2,500 each were made otherwise than by a crossed cheque or a crossed bank draft. The explanation given by the assessee in this behalf was rejected and assessment made. However, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He accepted the explanation given by the assessee in respect of the four payments. He a...
Ashoke Gupta Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR715(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by an accountable person against the notice issued by the Assistant Controller, Estate Duty, under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act proposing to reopen the assessment relating to the estate of the deceased Brij Lal Gupta, father of the petitioner. The death had occurred on February 7, 1976. The petitioner filed return as an accountable person and an assessment was made under Section 58(3) of the Act on March 19, 1977. It is, thereafter, that on July 31, 1979, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Valuation Officer under Section 41 of the Act calling upon him to file certain information in connection with the enquiry made by him on the valuation of the house property mentioned therein. The petitioner objected to the said letter saying that since the assessment has already been made and has become final, there is no occasion for any valuation thereafter. Be that as it may, the impugned notice was issued thereafter on...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Gaur Hari Singhania and Kailashpat Sing ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR74(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The four questions referred in this reference are identical to the questions which were referred in Wealth-tax Reference No. 1007 of 1978 (CWT v. Pushpawati Devi Singhania : [1991]188ITR364(All) disposed of on November 13, 1990). In the said decision, we held that there was no conflict between Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. The same view has been taken in CWT v. Sripat Singhania : [1978]112ITR363(All) , a decision of this court.2. For these reasons, question No. 1 is answered in the following terms :Since there is no conflict between Section 24(6) and Rule 1D, the question of one overriding the other does not arise.3. For the same reason, question No. 4 must be answered in the affirmative saying that, even on a reference under Section 24(6), the arbitrators are bound to follow Rule 1D.4. Question No. 2 is premised on the assumption that the Revenue did not rely upon Rule 1D. In this case too, it does not clearly appear...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagat Shyam and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)169; [1991]188ITR608(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's opinion that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax did not apply his mind before initiating proceedings under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and he abdicated his function in favour of the Income-tax Officer is legally correct ?'2. The asessee is a partnership firm. It was constituted under a partnership deed dated March 18, 1963. There were two partners and two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. Registration was granted under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1964-65. It was being renewed every year. It appears that the two minors attained majority during the financial year ending on March 31, 1964. This fact was, however, not intimated to the authorities. No action was taken to execute a fresh partnership deed inc...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Mohinder Kaur
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD428(All.)
1. In this appeal filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(Appeals), in which the following grounds of appeal have been raised :- 1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law on facts and in the circumstances of the case in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 88,338 imposed under Section 18(1)(c)of WT Act, 1957, following the decision in the case of U.S. Lalli and S.Harinder Singh for the asst. year 1982-83 which has not been accepted by the Department and the matter is subjudice before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not correctly interpreting the Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not correctly interpreting the law that the Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) is procedural in nature and thus retrospective, as has been held in the case of CIT v. Parmanand Advani [1979] 119 ITR 464 (Pat.) 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagjiwan Patel Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(All)176; [1991]188ITR563(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, on the retirement of the two partners, namely, S/Shri Jagjiwan M. Patel and Rashik Lal G. Singhavi, there would be succession and not a change in the constitution of the firm (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that there should be two separate assessments for the assessment year 1972-73, one for the period April 1, 1971 to June 30, 1971 and the other for the period July 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm. Prior to June 30, 1971, it comprised three partners, viz., S/Shri Jagjiwan M. Patel, Rasik Lal G. Singhavi and Kirti Kumar Shah. On that date, the first two partners retired and the firm was reconstituted under a new partn...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Durga Prasad Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(All)157; [1991]188ITR573(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee can claim deduction only for actual payments made in one financial year less realisations from the customers ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. The assessment year concerned is 1969-70. The assessee is engaged in purchase and sale of motor oil and motor parts. The relevant previous year was April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969. For the past few years, the assessee was collecting sales tax and making a provision for sales tax but was actually paying a lesser amount to the Sales Tax Department. Since the petitioner was maintaining his accounts on mercantile basis and since the tax liability was already there, the difference amount was not added to his income. But, for th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Inamullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR583(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C. J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty without recording a finding that there was reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the return 2. The assessee is a firm. It was constituted on April 1, 1968. For the assessment year 1969-70, which was the first assessment year for it, it did not file the return on or before September 30, 1969, the prescribed date. It filed the return on October 27, 1970, i.e., with a delay of more than twelve months. On account of this delay, a notice under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act was issued to him. The assessee, in his explanation, merely relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. : [1970]77ITR518(SC) . He submitted that the return filed by it should be treated as one under Section 139(4), that it was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »