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.
Puran Sugar Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR120(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Having heard counsel for both the parties, wn direct the Tribunal to state the following two questions, namely, questions Nos. 1 and 2, out of the questions suggested by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were attracted to the facts of the case, even though no such finding had been recorded in the assessment order, nor was any such ground taken in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal ? (2) Without prejudice to the above and, in the alternative, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in. the absence of maintenance of day-to-day stock records for each stage of production, the books of account were liable to be rejected and the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act were to be applied ?' 2. It is agreed by the assesscc's counsel that que...
Hari Om Prakash Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR110(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application, the accountable person is asking this court to refer as many as five questions under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in ignoring the picas that the deceased had hold the estate left to him in coparcenary capacity and that he was not the owner thereof in his individual capacity ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering ground No. 4, specified in the memo of appeal as follows : Ground No. 4 (i) All the properties, both movable and immovable, possessed and owned by the deceased, were ancestral and ever since till the time of his death the properties belonged to the Hindu undivided family consisting of self and his son. Only half of the total estate passed on his death and that alone was chargeable to estate duty in the present case.(ii) The learned au...
Sital Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR135(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application, the assessee has requested this court to refer the following four questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the first appellate authority was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal and no interference was called for ? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal in its entirety is not vitiated in law as having been passed without considering the material and evidence on record ? 3. Whether, on a due consideration of the material and evidence as had been placed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and as had been placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have directed the lower appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits ? 4. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the medical certificate as had been filed before it constituted an additional evidence and in not entertaining the same on that ground ?' 2. All th...
Girraj Kishore Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR141(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Through this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in treating a sum of Rs. 35,000 as the assessee's income which was a deposit given by Sri Shaukat Ali to the assessee ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the discrepancy of Rs. 1,00,000 in the balance-sheet representing excess of assets over the liabilities was the assessee's income liable for taxation ? (3) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the deposit made by Sri Ghummar Singh to the tune of Rs. 51,000 was the undisclosed income of the assessee and hence liable for taxation ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to allow the assessee to lead additional evidence for the purposes of det...
Pramod Kumar Rakesh Kumar and Co., Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR637(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. These four writ petitions can be considered and disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the facts of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1989, as suggested by counsel for the petitioners. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and also to quash the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87. At the time of arguments, however, the attack was confined only to the notices under Section 148.2. Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1989 is filed by the association of persons, Messrs. Pramod Kumar Rakesh Kumar and Co. The members of this association are Pramod Kumar (40%), Rakesh Kumar (40%) and Girraj Kishore (20%). Those three persons have filed separate writ petitions being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petitions Nos. 1394, 1397 and 1395 of 1989, respectively. The pray...
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Labour Court (1) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR422]; (1992)ILLJ204All; (1990)3UPLBEC1838
R.S. Dhavan, J. 1. The application No. 10613 filed on 5th May, 1987 is under consideration, which seeks stay of the order dated 9th April, 1987 of the Labour Court II, Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 98 of 1985.2. The petition was filed on 23rd November, 1984 and was admitted on 1st January, 1985 when notices were issued on the stay application and ad interim order was not granted against the award dated 5th June 1984 in Adjudication Case No. 90 of 1983 Annexure 6 to the petition. The issue in the award was payment to be made to H.N. Mishra, Senior Clerk, upon findings in the award that he had worked as Incharge Price Control. The award gave the liberty to the employer to make a selection on this post and until it is made this workman was entitled to the emoluments and salary as on the post of Incharge Price Control.3. As the benefits under the award did not accrue to the workman, he moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was numbered as Misc. Cas...
Smt. Promilla Grover Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR95(All); [1990]53TAXMAN37(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. By this application, the assessee is asking this court to refer the following ten questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Lucknow, and rejecting the technical and expert opinion of the approved valuer and confirming the additions made by the assessing authority and courts below who have no engineering knowledge of the technical subject without the second opinion of any expert on the subject ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below were justified in confirming the additions made on account of unexplained investment in the property while the approved valuer explained the difference between the valuation report of the Government valuer and the approved valuer and reconciled the differences and submitted his report before the appellate author...
Chandpur Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR187(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application, the assesses is asking this court to refer the following three questions 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 legally correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,16,264 for the direct feeder line of power not owned by the assessee-company was a capital expenditure ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the inauguration expenses of Rs. 54,714 were not to be capitalised as forming the cost of plant and machinery ? (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, whether such expenses of Rs. 54,714 were of revenue nature deductible from the income of the assessee-company'?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, learned counsel for the asses-see has placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. : [1980]122ITR995...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajendra Kumar Karanwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR218(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the applicant is asking this court to refer the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147(a) was invalid ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in quashing the assessment framed by the Income-tax Officer in this case by initiation of proceedings under Section 147(a) ?' 2. The main question is whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 147(a) was valid. It was held by the Tribunal that the initiation of proceedings was invalid, inasmuch as the assessee was not under an obligation to disclose the factum of gifts to his minor sons by a third party in the return filed by him. Since the gifts were made by a third party to the minor sons, we agree with t...
Textile Agents Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR293(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application, the assessee is asking this court to refer the following seven questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of Section 145(1) are applicable ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in its presumption that the loose papers found in the residential premises of a partner, belonged to the applicant-firm and the initial burden is on the applicant-firm to disprove the contents of the said loose papers ? 3. Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the loose papers found in the residence of one of the partners belonged to the applicant-firm is not contrary to law and whether there was any material on record to support such finding ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »