Allahabad Court May 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.
Searaiya Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR392(All)
1. Having heard counsel for both the parties, we direct the Tribunal to state the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 paid to M/s. J. P. Mukherjee and Associates, Sugar Technologists and reputed consultants was justified by holding that it was of a capital nature and not a revenue expenditure ?'2. So far as question No, 1 is concerned, we do not think that there is any question of law that can be said to have arisen. The Tribunal has merely remanded the matter back to the first, appellate authority for a fresh decision.3. The income-tax application is allowed in part....
Smt. Badama Devi Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR360(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether the provisions of Section 69A have rightly been invoked in relation to the capital accumulated over a number of years and also the jewellery in question and the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the additions of : (a) Rs. 30,000 out of capital accumulation. (b) Rs. 7,300 out of jewellery thereunder for the assessment year 1981-82 ?' 2. This application is, accordingly, allowed in part with costs which we assess at Rs. 150....
Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(All)152; [1992]195ITR438(All)
Virendra Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming different amounts by way of refund and interest besides costs. In the course of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only the claim of Rs. 28,225 by way of interest on delayed refund of Rs. 73,928 which had fallen due to the petitioner on March 29, 1979, while the actual payment of this amount was made on October 12, 1982. This interest is claimed at 12 per cent. per annum besides the costs of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1974-75 on October 5, 1974, by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Circle II, Lucknow. Thereafter, a notice was issued under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), to the assessee regarding the excess rebate allowed to him. It appears that the assessee had no objection to the proposed rectification ; hence the mistake was rectified by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 of the Act on Febru...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheikhar Chand and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR269(All)
1. We are not satisfied that any question of law arises in this case which should be directed to be stated by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The question was whether there was any unexplained investment by the assessee in constructing a building complex. In that connection a question arose as to the cost of construction. The assessee filed two reports of two valuers in support of his contention. The Income-tax Officer called for a report from the Government valuer. There was a marked divergence between both the sets of valuation reports. The Tribunal preferred to accept the valuation reports filed on behalf of the assessee and, accordingly, held that there was no unexplained investment in the said construction. This is purely a finding of fact. However, learned standing counsel for the Revenue brings to our notice a particular observation made by the Income-tax Tribunal in para 11 of his judgment to the following effect:'Therefore, when there is a regi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›