Allahabad Court July 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 Wealth-tax Vs. Sri Aditya Kishore Bhartiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR207(All); [1991]57TAXMAN168(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The question referred under Section 27(1) of the Wealth -tax Act, 1957, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the debt relating to the taxable wealth after allowing exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act was allowable to the assessee ?'2. One of the assets included in the wealth of the assessee was a house property. It was valued at Rs. 5,00,000. It was pointed out that a sum ofRs. 62,500 was incurred on repairs and improvements to the said house. At the relevant time, house property up to the value of rupees one lakh only was exempt by virtue of Clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Sub-section (1-A) thereof. In other words, only an amount of rupees one lakh was to be deducted out of the net wealth under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Act.3. The Income-tax Officer did not grant any deduction on account of the said debt of Rs. 62,500 against which the assessee went up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. H...
Ram Sarandas Har Swaroop Mal and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(All)35; [1990]186ITR503(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The petitioner-assessee is challenging the validity of an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It filed its returns for the four assessment years concerned herein, namely, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, on October 25, 1979, March 31, 1982, March 26, 1983 and March 26, 1983, respectively. The returns were filed before notices under Section 139(2) or 148 were served upon the assessee, Since the returns were filed beyond the prescribed period, interest was levied by the Income-tax Officer under Sub-section (8) of Section 139. He also levied penalties under Section 271(1)(a), after the assessments were completed for all the four assessment years. The petitioner made an application to the Commissioner to waive the interest and penalties levied for the said assessment years. His application under Section 273A was made on February 1, 1986. The Commissioner of Income-tax...
Mahesh Chand Vishan Swarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR177(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Messrs. Mahesh Chand Vishan Swarup, Muzaffarnagar, a partnership firm is questioning the validity of an order dated December 27, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, transferring their assessment cases from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle I, Muzaffarnagar, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Circle, Meerut, 'to ensure proper and co-ordinated investigation and for other reasons' mentioned in the said order.2. Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Commissioner of Income-tax to transfer any case from one officer subordinate to him to another officer subordinate to him for reasons recorded by him and also after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee concerned. In this case, a notice was given to the petitioner and 29 other assessees, calling upon them to show cause why their cases should not be transferred from Muzaffarnagar to Meerut 'with a view to ensure prop...
Rajan Lal Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR150(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C. J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by Sri Rajan Lal questioning the notices dated November 6, 1987, issued under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, proposing to reopen the wealth-tax assessments of the petitioner relating to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1986-87. It would be sufficient if we state the facts of Writ Petition No. 53 of 1988.2. The petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee. One of the assets held by him is an open plot of land measuring 300 sq. yards situated in Greater Kailash locality of New Delhi. He has been disclosing this asset and its value from the very beginning. Indeed, he has been increasing its value in each consecutive year. It was valued at Rs. 60,000 for the assessment year 1976-77, at Rs. 75,000 for the assessment year 1980-81 and at Rs. 3,00,000 for the assessment year 1986-87. On each occasion, his return was supported by the report of an approved valuer and the valuation placed upon the plot in question was accepted by the Wealth-t...
Shrimati Majjo Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR642(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is challenging the validity of a notice issued under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner is not a regular assessee. Her land was acquired under a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on May 9, 1976. The declaration under Section 6(1) was published on June 4, 1976, and the award passed on September 5, 1984. The petitioner says that possession of land was taken on March 25, 1980. According to law, it is that date on which the property passes to the Government. The petitioner is, however, not in a position to state when she actually received the compensation. Be that as it may, it appears that she put the compensation received by her in a bank in the form of fixed deposits and in a savings bank account, namely, in the Allahabad Bank, Tejgarhi, Meerut. On December 1, 1988, the bank informed the petitioner that the said F. D. R. and S. B. account has been attached by the Assistant Commissioner of I...
State Vs. Akhtar Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1779
S.I. Jafri, J.1. State has filed this appeal impugning therein the judgment and order dated 16-3-1978 passed by Sri B. B. L. Hajeley, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad. By its appeal the State of U.P. has impugned the conviction of the respondent Akhtar under Section 304, I.P.C. Part II and also of the offence Under Sections 323/34, I.P.C. and purging of the respondent of the charges Under Sections 302/34, 324/34, I.P.C.2. Respondents Akhtar Khan, Achchan Khan and All Dad Khan have also filed connected Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 1978 in which they have assailed the judgment and order passed by Sri B. B. L. Hajeley, Ist Addl. Sesions Judge, Moradabad dated 16-3-1978 recording conviction and sentences in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 1976. Akhtar Khan, respondent was convicted Under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. He was also found guilty Under Section 323/34, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Achchan Khan and Ali Dad Khan respon...
State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kishan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ895
S.K. Mookerji, J.1. The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut acquitted Ram Kishan and Balbir accused, who were charged for offence, Under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and convicted Suresh Accused, under Section 302 of the Penal Code for committing the murder of Narendra Singh and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Against the foresaid order of acquittal passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in favour of Ram Kishan and Balbir accused, the State of U.P. has filed Government Appeal No. 2129 of 1978. By the same judgment, the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut has convicted Suresh accused, Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and, therefore, Suresh has filed an appeal against the said judgment. His appeal number is 2060 of 1978. Both the above appeals (Nos. 2129 of 1978 and 2060 of 1978) arise out of the common judgment in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1977 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 18th...
Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC399(Allahabad)
1. The petitioner's grievance is that even though this Court directed on 29.5.1990 in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, that the stay application should be disposed of by the appellate authority within three weeks, the appellate authority have not disposed of the stay application so far. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority is Collector, Allahabad, but since no such officer is posted, the Delhi Collector has been made incharge of this office.2. The petitioner says that he approached the Appellate Collector, Delhi, who refused to pass any order on the stay application on the ground that he is already overworked.3. In the circumstances, it is directed that the stay application filed by the petitioner along with appeal shall be disposed of, if not already disposed of within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending passing of such order, the operation of the order under appeal is stayed.4. The w...
Banaras State Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR145(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application, the assessee is asking the following four questions to be referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:'1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding that accrual of liability of bonus of Rs. 6 lakhs arose after the accounting period ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in finding that there was real income on sticky accounts on which no interest was charged ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering and accepting the bona fide change in system of accounting from the mercantile to cash system on sticky accounts and charging interest on these accounts ? 4. Whether, on accounts whose operation was closed for more than three years, in view of the circular of September 1984, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in charging interest and not accepting the bona fide change of accounting from mercantile to cash on these accounts ?' 2. Learned counsel for the pe...
Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC331(Allahabad)
1. The order impugned hereunder is that of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Against the said order an appeal lies to the Appellate Collector. We do not see any reason why we should entertain a writ petition directly against the order of the Assistant Collector when there is a statutory right of appeal available to the petitioner.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Assistant Collector has declined to follow the decision of CEGAT in a similar matter. The Assistant Collector has stated that the decision of the CEGAT has not been accepted by the department and that an appeal is filed in Supreme Court. We have also seen the reasoning in the impugned order. We do not think that we can ignore the right of appeal and entertain the writ petition.3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.4. It is open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority. If he files an appeal along with the stay application, the Appellate Authority...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »