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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Pushpawati Devi Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(All)233; [1991]188ITR364(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal referred the following four questions :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, overrides the provisions of Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, is it open to the Revenue to rely on Rule 1D even though no specific argument was raised before Tribunal ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in adopting the valuation as made by the; valuers even though their valuation was not based on the statutory method of valuation provided under Rule 1D? 4. Whether the valuers to whom the valuation of shares was referred under Section 24(6) of the Act were, in law, bound to follow the method of valuation prescribed by Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules ' 2. The assessee is an individual. She held certain unquoted shares of various companies of the J.K. Gr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tableware Craft Cottage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR350(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the onus placed on the assessee under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been discharged by it (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalties of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 43,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) read with its Explanation for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, respectively ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of export of brassware. We are concerned with the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee filed returns disclosing particular incomes. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not accept the gross profit disclosed by the assessee and added certain amounts. It is sufficient to mention that th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janki Saran Kailash Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR808(All)
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was evidence on record justifying the Tribunal's finding that the assessee has discharged the onus under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as forest contractors. The assessment year concerned is 1969-70. In its trading account, the asessee disclosed sales of Rs. 12.77 lakhs with a gross profit of 10.62%. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the percentage of profit was too low. He also found that the books of account maintained by the assessee were defective. He estimated the assessee's sales at Rs. 13 lakhs and gross profit at 18% and, on that basis, made additions to the income disclosed by the assossee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the percentage of profit to 16% wh...
Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kathgodam, Naini ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All158
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. By these writ petitions, petitioners, who are holding national permits for carriage of goods, have challenged the validity of R.6 of National Permit Rules, 1975, framed under S. 63(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) and R. 88 of the 'Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act (sic). These Rules which provide for 9 years' model condition of motor vehicles, covered under national permits are quoted below:'6.(1) National permit shall not be granted or renewed in respect of Motor Vehicles which is more than 9 years old at any point of time. (2) When a vehicle covered by National Permit is proposed to be replaced by another vehicle the later vehicle shall not be more than 9 years old on the date of such replacement. (3) National permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle attains the age of 9 years unless the vehicle is replaced in terms of sub-rule (2) above.' '88. Age of mot...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Onkar Saran and Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR320(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has stated the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(i) Whether the assessee's claim for a partial partition of the immovable properties under consideration was legally acceptable under Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was in law justified in directing exclusion of the income from the properties under consideration from the assessment of the assessed Hindu-undivided family ?' 2. The questions referred in all the references are identical. The assessee is also the same in all the references. It would, therefore, be sufficient if we refer to the facts in Income-tax Reference No. 199 of 1979.3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, Onkar Saran and Brothers. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed that there has been a partial partition amongst the members of the Hindu undivided family andrequested the Income-tax Officer to recognise ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahabir Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(All)174; [1991]188ITR337(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, 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 law in holding that the source of the liability was neither in manufacture nor in supply but in requisition andthereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of jute articles, especially gunny bags. The assessment year concerned is 1973-74. During the relevant previous year, an order was served upon the assessee under Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, issued by the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, Calcutta, calling upon the assessee to supply 7,110 bales of jute bags during the period November, 1971, to September, 1972. The supply was to be made at a notified price whi...
Smt. Raj Kumari and anr. Vs. Smt. Kalawati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1373
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The applicants have been convicted under Section 494, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to one year R.I.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that Srimati Kalawati, opposite party No. 1, was married to Kallo (applicant No. 2). It is alleged that Kalloo ill-treated Srimati Kalawati and about 2 1/2 years before the date of complaint, he snatched her ornaments and clothes and turned her out of the house so that she was compelled to live with her mother and brother.3. It is further alleged that Kalloo contracted a second marriage with Smt. Raj Kumari (applicant No. 1) is Agahan 1977 although Smt. Raj Kumari was already married to Ram Ratan and on the date of the second marriage with Kalloo, her earlier marriage still subsisted. With regard to Kalloo's first marriage with Smt. Kalawati, the allegation was that this marriage also subsisted on the date on which Kalloo married Smt. Raj Kumari. The second marriage was, therefore, assailed to be invali...
Chatur Bhuj Prasad Khattri Vs. Hari NaraIn Khattri and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All72
ORDER1. This revision is directed against an order of the Court below whereby it has allowed the defendants to amend the written statement by raising a plea of adverse possession in their written statement.2. The plaintiff appears to have filed a suit for declaration in respect of a suit property which was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the suit property was purchased on 3-8-1939 from the funds of the defendants in the name of the plaintiff. The transaction was Benami. The defendants have further stated that the house in question which is suit property was demolished and reconstructed along with other portions of already existing house, under the integrated construction scheme. In para 15 of the written statement, the defendants have stated that the suit property has remained in their possession and they were exclusive owners thereof to the knowledge of the plaintiff and all others and their names were entered as owners over the disputed house in the Municipal records.3....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satya Deo Omprakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(All)182; [1991]188ITR303(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 law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the completion of three assessments for the three periods instead of a single assessment in the entire previous year from April 1, 1971, to March 31, 1972, relevant for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' 2. The assessment year is 1972-73. The relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1972. The assessee is a partnership firm. It consisted of five partners on the first day of the relevant previous year. On May 5, 1971, two of the partners retired and the firm was reconstituted on May 6, 1971, with the remaining partners who took in a new partner, Arun Kumar. Again, on August 7, 1971, one of the partners, Om Prakash, died. The firm was again reconstituted with effect from Augus...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rameshwar Prasad and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR291(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated September 10, 1971, and served on October 23, 1971, was valid and operative ?'2. With respect to the assessment year 1965-66, the Income-tax Officer proposed to reopen the assessment. He issued notice under Section 148 on September 10, 1971. It was actually served on October 23, 1971. Between these two dates, the case was transferred from the Income-tax Officer who issued the notice to another Income-tax Officer. One of the questions urged before the Tribunal and which is the only question now relevant before us was whether the order of transfer is valid. In short, the argument of the assessee was that a proceeding under Section 148 can be said to have commenced in law only when the notice thereunder is served upon the assesse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »