Allahabad Court July 1990 Judgments
Mehmood Halim Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR312(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Common questions are raised in these applications filed by Mehmood Halim under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. As many as 12 questions are sought to be referred. They read as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in including the whole of the value of property No. 13 of 286, Parmat, Kanpur, in view of the fact that, on account of the modified distribution of the assets of the father, this property was excluded from the share of the assessee and was eventually kept apart and utilised for the payment of arrears of taxes of the deceased ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding ownership of this property is sustainable in law when the matter of the modified distribution including this property has been set aside by the Tribunal for fresh consideration by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR363a(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy C.J.1. Common questions are referred in these three references made under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is common in all these cases. The assessment years concerned are 1963-64 to 1967-68.2. The two questions referred in Income-tax Reference Case No. 895 of 1978 are :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the assessee-company entitled to allowance of Rs. 32,994 and Rs. 1,40,805 by way of interest in the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in treating the loss on the sale of U. P. Development Loan as business loss ?' 3. In Income-tax Reference No. 896 of 1978, only one question is referred, which reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the assessee-company entitled to allowance of Rs. 1,39,330 by way of interest in the assessment year 1965-66 ?'4. In Income-tax Reference No. 91...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Suresh Kumar Kaushik Alias Chakkarpani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR343(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The Department has filed this application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, requesting this court to direct the petitioner to state four questions :'1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was factually and legally correct in directing discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, when the asset to be valued was agricultural lands ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing that the discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to all the assessment years including the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by fixing certain percentage year-wise of compensation which finding is without any reason and relevant material ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally wrong in not specifying in its direction any further receipt of enhanced compensation in future, which as per the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raman Iron Foundry and Steel Rolling Mi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR328(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. List has been revised. Counsel for therespondent not present.2. Having regard to the fact that this court and other courts have dealt with similar questions, vide CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. : [1980]121ITR747(All) , we direct the Tribunal to state question No. 1 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. Question No. 1, which is directed to be referred, reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,29,328 made on account of cash assistance under Section 28(iv) disregarding the provisions of Section 2(24)(va) along with Section 10(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Board's Circular No. 1690 dated February 11, 1986 ?'3. It is agreed that question No. 2 is merely argumentative in nature and does not constitute an independent question.4. The income-tax appeal is allowed in part, as stated above. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Kaushik
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR623(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. For the reasons stated in our order in Wealth-tax Applications Nos. 205 to 210 of 1989 (CWT v. Suresh Kumar Kaushik alias Chakkarpani : [1991]187ITR343(All) ), disposed of today, question No. 1 alone in these cases is directed to be referred. Question No. 1 reads as follows :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was factually and legally correct in directing the discounted value of compensation received by the assessee, being taken in relation to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 when the asset to be valued was agricultural land ?'2. So far as questions Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they cannot be referred for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid order.3. These wealth-tax applications are allowed in part. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR257(All)
R.A. Sharma, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record and that, as such, action under Section 154 was not justified ?'2. The assessee-firm, for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, was assessed in the status of a registered firm. The Income-tax Officer subsequently, in exercise of his powers under Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), cancelled the registration of the assessee-firm, vide order dated March 24, 1975, on the ground that the assessee-firm consisted of more than 20 persons which is prohibited by Section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was, as such, illegal and is not liable to be registered. It was further hel...
Tag this Judgment!Kulvinder Kaur and anr. Vs. Jasbir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC313
R.S. Dhavan, J.1. This habeas corpus petition has ultimately failed; Shyam Sunder Pathak as petitioner claims that Kulvinder Kaur and he are married. He further states that Kulvinder Kaur has been illegally detained by Jasbir Singh, her father and Darbara Singh, her brother. From the habeas corpus petition it appears that Shyam Sunder Pathak or Kulvinder Kaur and her parents were not strangers to him. He contends that he worked with the firm Mehrotra Udyog, which manufactures Pressure Cookers and this manufacturing concern is owned by the opposite parties. He talks of a love affair and elopement and a marriage. Thereafter, he says that Kulvinder Kaur continues in illegal detention and confinement of her parents. On these facts warrants were issued on this habeas corpus petition requiring the corpus of Kulvinder Kaur to be produced before the Court by Jasbir Singh, her father and her brother, Darbara Singh.2. On the date fixed Kulvinder Kaur appeared having been produced by the opposite...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC123
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This appeal was dismissed for default on 17th April, 1987. The present application for restoration was made on 16.7.1990. The affidavit filed in support of the application, an explanation is put forward for the delay in filing the restoration application. When this application came up for orders, we heard the appellant's counsel on merits itself to see whether there is any substance in the appeal itself.The appeal is against an award of the Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The accident took place on 17.12.1983 in which a five-year old son of the respondents herein died. The learned District Judge on a consideration of evidence produced, before him, awarded a sum of Rs. 30, 000 by way of compensation. While determining this figure he took into account the provisions of Section 92-A which was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act with effect from 1.10.1982 and which provides for no-fault-liability in a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- The main cont...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anand Balal Bhushan Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR25(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is an application for recalling the order dated July 5, 1989, passed by this court. By the said order an application under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, filed by the applicant being Estate Duty Application No. 328 of 1988 was dismissed. The ground for recall is that learned counsel for the applicant, for good and sufficient reason, could not appear before the court when the order dated July 5, 1989, was made. We were also addressed on the merits of the controversy involved in the application under Section 64(3) aforesaid.2. Before going into the question of sufficiency of cause for non-appearance, we may take note of the other arguments of the applicant. It was argued that the assessment order which purports to be a provisional assessment and is so labelled was, in fact, a regular and final assessment order, inasmuch as, on the facts of the present case, the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to pass a provisional assessment order.3. We feel it...
Tag this Judgment!Puttu Singh Alias Thakur and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: 2000CriLJ537
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-7-1980 passed by Sri Khem Karan, the then IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 242 of 1979 State v. Puttu Singh, Ghasi alias Ghasote and Mathura under Sections 399/ 402, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Dakore, whereby he convicted Puttu Singh, Ghasi alias Ghasote, Mathura and Sheo Singh present accused-appellants of the offences under Sections 399/ 402, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to suffer R. I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 399, I.P.C. and R. I. for a period of 3 years for the offence under Section 402, I.P.C. and further convicted Puttu Singh. Ghasi alias Ghasote and Mathura accused-appellants of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for a period of half years.2. During the pendency of this appeal, Mathura accused-appellant died and consequently the appeal abates to his extent. Puttu Singh accused-a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »