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.
Shivan Industries and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC104(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This writ petition is directed at the instance of two petitioners, namely, Shivan Industries of district Lakhimpur Kheri and Luxman Das Radhey Shyam of Shahjahanpur, hereinafter referred to as 'first and second petitioner' respectively.2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77. During the relevant year the first petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of khandsari sugar. It sold sugar directly and also through commission agents. The second petitioner in the year in question was acting as commission agent on behalf of its principals, one of them being the first petitioner and claims to have sold certain quantity of khandsari sugar manufactured by the first petitioner, as its selling agent. Although a number of reliefs have been claimed through this writ petition but during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners stated that principal relief is directed against the assessment order passed against the second petitioner...
Sri Satya Prakash Goel Vs. Ram Krishan Mission and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All343
ORDERG.D. Dube, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Dehradun dismissing the suit for specific performance of the contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and for possession of the property in dispute.2. The appellant has alleged that the respondent No. 1 had decided to sell the property in dispute by its resolution No. 8 dated 27-2-1975 and authorised respondent No. 2 to sell the property in dispute and entered into an agreement for the said purpose. The respondent No. 2 had met and informed the appellant in the second week of June, 1976 that he was intending to sell theproperty in suit. The plaintiff had, therefore, made his offer to purchase the property for Rupees 67,100/-. The respondent No. 2 had accepted the offer of sale of the property on as it is basis with all litigation involved in the said property. It was alleged in the plaint that in this way there was concluded contract between the pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hind Lamps Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(All)204; [1991]190ITR553(All)
S.C. Verma, J.1. The controversy involved in the question referred to us is as to whether, on the basis of the profit and loss account submitted by the assessee, the total income of the new unit could be computed for the purpose of deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The question referred is quoted below :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of its alleged new unit under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee dealt with production of lamps and for that purpose initially imported lamp caps. Later on, the assessee started manufacturing lamp caps itself for which a new unit was established. In the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80J of the Act before the Income-tax Officer but that was rejected on the ground that the manufacture of lamp caps was part and parcel of the assessee's existing bus...
Ram Prasad Agarwal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR613(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. In respect of the estate left by Shiv Prasad Agarwal, the petitioner, the accountable person, filed a return. A provisional assessment was first made whereunder duty in a sum of Rs. 26,210 is said to have been held payable. Subsequently, regular assessment was made oil March 31, 1984, whereunder a demand of Rs. 27,910 was raised.2. The first fact which is not clear from the record placed before us is whether the sum of Rs. 27,910 includes Rs. 26,210 held payable under the provisional assessment order or whether this is over and above the said amount. This aspect may first be looked into and determined by the Estate Duty Officer (the Officer now performing those duties) with notice to the petitioner.3. The petitioner further says that he has paid a sum of Rs. 36,500 by way of gift-tax upon the said deceased gifting property and whose value has been included in his estate. He says that the petitioner is entitled to deduct the said gift-tax amount paid by him fro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naresh Chandra Bhargava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR261(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following questions ;'Whether, in view of the fact that the applicant's accounting year was from January, 1965, to December, 1965, there was any justification forthe addition of the proportionate interest for the period from October 1, 1964, to December 31, 1964, in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1966-67 ?'2. The assessment year concerned herein is 1966-67 and the previous year relevant thereto is the calendar year 1965. Certain property was acquired in which the assessee, an individual, had an interest. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was carried to the civil court. The civil court made an award on September 30, 1964. The civil court enhanced the compensation and awarded interest on such enhanced compensation. It appears that there was a partition on September 27, 1964, with respect to this additional compen...
Mahabir Prasad Kedia Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD419(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 15th January, 1987, for the assessment year 1983-84. 1. Because the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 29,250 representing the interest earned by his wife Smt. Sudama Devi on her loan with M/s. Mohan Lal Bhagwati Prasad by invoking the provisions of Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Because the authorities below have failed to appreciate that the amount in question could not be said to be the income resulting to the spouse of the appellant on account of her partnership interest in the said firm. 3. Because the amount in question had been earned on a loan account which she had voluntarily advanced to the firm purely with intention to earn interest thereon and the same should not have been clubbed in the hands of the appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 54(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Because on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›