Allahabad Court December 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 Income-tax Vs. Development Trust (P.) Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR504(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The 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 Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability in those cases was not a contingent liability but a liability in praesenti and consequently allowing the development expenses of Rs. 14,998 and Rs. 1,04,156 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of colonisation at Agra. In the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, it undertook the development of a colony known as 'Vibhav Nagar' at Agra. The assessee-company had undertaken to develop the said colony as given in the layout plan duly approved by the Municipal Committee. A part of the development was to be undertaken by the Municipal Committee and the other part by the assessee. The assessee deposited sums of Rs. 45,000 and Rs. 42,000 with the Municipal Commi...
M/S. Shyam Gas Company Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All129; (1991)1UPLBEC355
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid four petitions and they are interconnected both on facts and arise out of either consequential orders or for the purpose of enforcement of the right depending on facts of earlier writ petitions. Writ Petitions Nos. 7009 of 1986, 15224 of 1986 and 1944 of 1987 have been admitted and writ no, 8013 of 1987 was not admitted and was directed to be listed for admission along with the aforesaid writ petitions. Since common argument was made in all these petitions both by the petitioner and the respondents and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties they are being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of Court by means of this common judgment.2. The petitioner-firm obtained a Gas Agency from M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. under scheduled caste quota and an agreement was executed for the same between Messrs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the petitioner on 21st March, 1983. The petitione...
Dr. Lal Chandra Vs. the Vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Var ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All183; (1991)1UPLBEC25
ORDER1. Petitioner after having passed the M.B.B.S. examination in 1988, did one year of internship and thereafter got himself registered with the Medical Council. Vide advertisement dated 19-1-1990, Post-Graduate Medical Board, Institute of Medical Science, Banaras Hindu University, respondent No. 2 invited applications from eligible candidates for admission test to fill up vacant seats of Post-Graduate Courses. Petitioner applied in pursuance of this advertisement and was qualified having secured 280 marks; but could not be admitted as his name was not included in the merit list. It appears that number of seats of the Post-Graduate Courses were not filled up by respondent No. 2 and are still lying vacant. Case of the petitioner is that after the admission was closed and when he came to know about these vacant seats, he applied for being admitted against these seats; but his application for admission against the existing vacant seats is not being considered. Petitioner as such, has fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ali Sons Export Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR208(All)
1. No one appears for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. In our opinion, the following two questions do arise from the order of the Tribunal which ought to be referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in taw justified in holding that there should be two assessments in the case of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in not sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Tribunal is directed to state the aforesaid questions. No costs....
Hapur Printing Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR222(All)
1. After hearing learned counsel both for the assessee and for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that, of the five questions sought to be raised, only one question, i.e., question No. 3, arises from the order of the Tribunal. Question No. 3 reads as under :'Whether, on facts and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that entire receipts of Rs. 46,238 in respect of supply of printed material could be taken as income without allowing any deduction in respect of various inputs in the form of paper, printing charges and other incidental expenses and treatment of entire receipts as income was not illegal ?'2. Questions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are merely factual in nature and cannot be referred. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, since there is no proper discussion in the order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to direct the Tribunal to state the aforesaid question.3. The income-tax appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal is directed to state the said question. No costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Law Times Press
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR56(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. No one appears for the respondent-assessee. Heard counsel for the Revenue.2. The following question is referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that two assessments should have been made by the Income-tax Officer one for the period April 1, 1972, to October 6, 1972, i.e., before the change in the constitution of the firm, and another for the period October 7, 1972, to March 31, 1973, i.e., the period after the change in the constitution of the firm ?'3. The assessee is a partenership firm. The assessment year concerned is 1973-74. At the inception of the relevant previous year, the firm comprised seven partners. On October 6, 1972, one of the partners retired. The remaining partners exeuted a new partnership deed on October 12, 1972, with effect from October 7, 1972. In the above circumstances, the question arose as to whether it is a case of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mewalal Kanhaiyalal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR426(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-taxAct, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty on the date onwhich it was passed ?' 2. The question is concluded in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in CIT v. Om Sons : [1979]116ITR215(All) . In the said decision, it has been held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner must have jurisdiction not only on the date he initiated the penalty proceedings but also on the date he passed the final orders. Though this view is opposed to the view taken by a majority of the High Courts in the country, we are bound by the said Bench decision. Following the same, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kesho Dass Shri Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR40(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The 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'Rasoi' expenses of Rs. 13,394 were in the nature of entertainment expenditure and were disallowable under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ?'We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears forthe respondent, though served.2. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265, the question has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Nocosts....
Sidh Company (Kanpur) and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR629(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. We are unable to see any substance in this writ petition. The writ petition is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act. The relevant facts are the following : The petitioner is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1975-76, the return ought to have been filed on or before July 31, 1975. (Therelevant previous accounting year ended on June 21, 1974). It appears that the petitioner applied for extension of time for filing the return on three occasions. The time was asked finally till November 30, 1975 ; of course, no orders appear to have been passed upon these applications for extension of time. Be that as it may, the return was filed on December 19, 1975, disclosing an income of Rs. 4,57,215. Assessment was completed computing the petitioner's income as Rs. 4,59,000. Proceedings were initiated both under Section 271(1)(a) for levying penalty and also under Section 139(8) for levying interes...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Educational Supplying and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR624(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(1) 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 legally correct in law in deleting the additions made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. In this case, the assessee is a registered firm. The assessment year concerned is 1976-77. During the relevant year, there were five partners. They were represented in their capacities as kartas of their respective Hindu undivided families in the firm. The assessee paid certain amount by way of interest to two of the partners on the deposits made by them in their individual capacity. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following its own decision in another matter.3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. None...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »