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.
Dev Kumar JaIn Vs. Agricultural Valuation Officer/income-tax Officer a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR297(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Matter is ready and, therefore, heard finally.2. This is a petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notices issued under Section 16A(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Agricultural Valuation Officer, Dehradun, dated November 18, 1989, December 3, 1987, and December 29, 1987.3. The assessment year concerned herein is 1980-81. The relevant valuation date is March 31, 1980. Before the Wealth-tax Officer, two of the issues in controversy were : (i) whether, the family settlement put forward by the assessee is true and should be accepted, and (ii) what is the value of the agricultural land measuring 21 bighas, 15 biswas situate at Dara Kote Tala, Chilkana Road, Saharanpur. The Wealth-tax Officer made the assessment refusing to accept and act upon the family settlement deed. He valued the aforementioned agricultural asset at Rs. 35,12,880 applying the rate of Rs. 60 per sq....
Bidhi Chand Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR556(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The only question raised in this petition is whether the appellate authority had the power to direct the Income-tax Officer to make two assessments, one for the period January 1, 1977 to October 25, 1977, and the other for the period October 26, 1977 to December 31, 1977. The assessee was a partnership firm comprising two partners. One of them, Bidhi Chand Gupta, died on October 25, 1977. Evidently, there was no provision in the deed of partnership that, even after the death of one partner, the partnership will continue with his heirs. A fresh partnership was entered into with surviving partners. In those circumstances, the assessee submitted that two assessments must be made with respect to the said two periods. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not agree and made one assessment for the entire calendar year (previous year). Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal which was allowed and the Income-tax Officer was directed to make two separate a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Organisation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR664(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. By this application, the Revenue is asking this court to refer the following questions under Section 256(2) of theIncome-tax Act : '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee association of persons was exempt from tax on the ground of mutuality despite the position that the provisions of Section 10(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the facts of this case because the objects of the assessee-association did not provide at all for the regulation of relations between employers and workmen and further because out of seventeen listed objects, only one object provided for regulation of relations between employers and workmen 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the test of mutuality was satisfied particularly in the light of the fact that the contributors and the ultimate beneficiaries in the event of dissolution of the association of persons cannot remain the same in v...
Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC91; [1991(63)FLR227]
S.I. Jafri, J.1. The instant revision has been filed by .applicant Devendra Singh impugaing thereby the judgment and order dated 1-12-1989 passed by Sri K.C. Agarwal, Sessions Judge Deoria awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 400/- per month to Km. Vibha, Shikha and Km. Bindu respondents 3 to 5.2. The aforesaid revision was admitted by this Court on the question of quantum of maintenance on 14-2-90.3. I have heard Sri M. Islam and Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants, as well as the learned counsel for the State.4. The facts of the case are that Smt. Vimla Devi, mother of respondents 3 to 5 initially filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying therein to award maintenance to the tune of Rs. 700/- for herself and Rs. 500/- per month for the aforesaid minor daughters which were born out of the union of the applicant and respondent No. 2 recoverable from her husband Devendra Pratap Singh, applicant in the instant revision. In the application, it was alleged by re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›