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. Vindeshwari Trading Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR438(All); [1991]55TAXMAN197(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the following two questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that two assessments should be made separately for the two periods, April 1, 1971, to October 31, 1971, and November 1, 1971, to March 31, 1972 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal was legally justified in not treating the assessee-firm as reconstituted within the meaning of the clear provisions contained in Section 187(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessment year concerned is 1972-73. The firm consisted of five partners. Smt. Vindeshwari Devi died on November 1, 1971, three partners retired leaving only one of them, namely, Gopal Narain, as the sole proprietor. On the same day, Gopal Narain took two other persons as partne...
Mansa Ram and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)271; [1991]192ITR171(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has stated 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was valid service of notices under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1949-50 and under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56 on the assessee-Hindu undivided family ? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative and in favour of the assessee, whether the assessment made in pursuance of the said notices for the five assessment years 1949-50, 1952-53 to 1955-56 are valid in law?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta, Kailash Chand Jain. During the years 1949 to 1955, it carried on banking business under the name and style of Mansa Ram and Sons, with its head office at...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Nath Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR169(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated 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 justified in holding that the provisions of Section 155(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the facts of this case and hence the Income-tax Officer was not competent to rectify the assessments under that section by withdrawing the deduction of excess profits tax liability allowed earlier even when the excess profits tax proceedings were quashed by the court ?'2. The assessee is an Hindu undivided family. The income-tax assessments of the assessee for assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48 were completed in March, 1953. The excess profits tax payable by the assessee for each of these years was allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the respective years. Subsequently, notices were issued under Section 13(1) of the Excess Pr...
Gopi Krishna and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR366(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. These two references arise from a common order of the Tribunal. The assessee is common. Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1983 arises from assessment proceedings, while Income-tax Reference No. 290 of 1981 arises from penalty proceedings. They pertain to the assessment year 1974-75. The question referred in Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1983 reads :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the allowance of business loss of Rs. 35,000 incurred in dacoity ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in treating the sum of Rs. 15,000 as unexplained investment of the assessee ?' 2. In Income-tax Reference No. 290 of 1981, the questions referred are :'(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Harish Chandra Agarwal,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR604(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. A common question is referred in all these three cases. Though the assessees are different, the relevant facts are identical. All the three assessees happened to be partners in a partnership firm, M/s. Chhittermal Ramdayal, Agra, and that is how their cases are identical so far as the question referred is concerned. The question referred under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its opinion that the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer for the sustained cash credit as part of the assessee's wealth treating them as asset is incorrect ?'2. For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the facts in W. T. R. No. 69 of 1979.3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Sri Harish Chandra Agrawal is its karta. As karta of this Hindu undivided family, he was a partner with 1/5th share in the aforesaid firm, M/s. Chittermal ...
Jagdamba Prasad Tewari and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1883
ORDERP.S. Chauhan, J.1. By means of this petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioners have sought the relief for quashing the orders dated 7-8-1981 and 12-8-81 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Machhali Shahr, District Jaunpur. While admitting the petition, this court stayed the proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid orders.2. Proceedings Under Section 133, Cr. P.C. commenced against the present petitioners on a police report made by the Station Officer, Police Station, Sujanganj, District Jaunpur to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Machhali Shahr, Jaunpur. The report was to the effect that in village Dompur towards the northern side of the house of Shiv Shanker Shukla, the house of Jagdamba-applicant is situate and towards the eastern side the house of applicant No. 2 Ram Lal is situate. Both these petitioners have obstructed the passage through which the rainy season water used to flow. Apart, this Gali is being used by Shiv Shanker Shukla and other residents of the villa...
The Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT446(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Common questions arise in these writ petitions which may be disposed of altogether. The petitioners are Sugar Factories. Molasses is a by-product of sugar manufacturing. It is a dutiable goods under the Central Excise Act. Molasses is also a controlled commodity. U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, and Rules made thereunder provides for its distribution, allotment and price. Though the central excise duty is payable on the manufacture, it is well known that for the sake of convenience it is collected at the stage of removal of goods from the bonded warehouse or approved place of storage, as the case may be. According to the licence granted to the petitioner-sugar Mills they have to provide steel tanks or construct Pucca tanks for storing molasses. This molasses has to be supplied to various allottees in accordance with allotment orders issued by the Excise Commissioner and at the rate specified.2. We may take the facts in Civil Misc. Writ No. 251 of 19...
Ram Vishal Soni Vs. Asstt. Collector, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1990
Reported in: 1992(43)LC327(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. A raid was conducted on the premises of the petitioner. Amongst other things, primary gold 120.750 grams, in weight, was seized. (It appears that out of the gold seized, one item was ornament of 4 grams which was not primary gold). Proceedings were taken under the Gold Control Act and the gold was directed to be confiscated by the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 25.3.1977. A penalty of Rs. 500A was also levied.2. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal was disposed of on 24.10.1985. The operative portion of the appellate order reads thus:.As such, I uphold the validity of the impugned order with regard to the penalty, but direct that the absolute confiscation of the primary gold be modified to one of release on a redemption fine of Rs. 7.500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five hundred only). The release shall be in accordance with the procedure set out in law for release of primary gold. The penalty is sustained. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›