Allahabad Court August 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 Income-tax Vs. Plastic Products Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: [1992]193ITR360(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - We are not satisfied that any question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal which ought to be referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The finding of the Tribunal is that, in the course of manufacture of plastic goods, some goods were damaged and they were not saleable in that state but were sold later after repairing. The Tribunal has also observed that when they were sold, the income received therefrom was credited to the trading account in those years. But, so far as the year of production is concerned, they were treated as of no value. We see no error of law in the approach of the Tribunal.The application is, accordingly, dismissed....
Padam Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR272(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction declaring the notices dated April 8, 1988, March 25, 1988, and February 3, 1988, issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Meerut (second respondent), under Rules 31, 73 and 2 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961, respectively.2. The firm Raghunandan Prasad Manohar Lal, consisting of four partners, was an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1981-82, a large amount of tax was determined to be payable by the firm. A notice under Section 156 of the Act was issued to the firm on December 22, 1987, calling upon it to remit a sum of Rs. 6,64,988.3. According to the petitioner, the firm was dissolved on January 28, 1981. Proceedings were initiated against the properties of the firm as well as of the partners of the dissolved firm for recovery of tax in arrears. Two writ petitions were filed by two partners of the firm in their individual capacity. Writ Petition No. 754 of 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.K. Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR397(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the material on record, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal could legally come to the conclusion that the assessee had discharged the burden which lay upon him in terms of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is an individual. He was a partner in Messrs. Hindustan Automobiles. Kanpur. He derived income both from the firm as well as certain interest income. He filed a return showing an income of Rs. 11,787 for the assessment year 1968-69. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 1,2...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Sugar Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(All)286; [1991]187ITR441(All)
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the assessment year 1969-70 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in allowing the full amount of loss or any part thereof on the sale of securities by the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in treating the loss on sale of U. P. Development Loan as a business loss ?' 2. With respect to the assessment year 1968-69, as many as five questions have been referred which read as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was there any partial partition of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta (HUF). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the amount of interest paid or any part thereof to Seth Mohan Lal and Sons and Mohan Orchards allowable as a deduction ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Shyam Biri Works (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC703(Allahabad)
1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though it filed an Appeal along with the stay petition on 9.1.1990 against the order of adjudication dated 27.11.1989, no orders have been passed so far either on the appeal or on the stay petition. We cannot say that the appeal ought to have been disposed of within this short time but we are of the opinion that some orders ought to have been passed on the stay petition, particularly when proceedings for recovery of the disputed duty are said to be proceeding ahead against the petitioner. It is further brought to our notice that the appellate authority at Allahabad is now on leave and it is not certain when he would be present here. We, however, presume that some incharge arrangement must have been made. Be that as it may, we direct that the appellate authority (or the Incharge of that office, as the case may be) shall dispose of the stay petition within a period of two months from the dale of production of a certified copy of this order ...
indra Deva (In Jail) Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2598
R.K. Saksena, J.1. Indra Deva, sole appellant, stands convicted under Section 304, Part I of the Penal Code with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years, per judgment and order dated the 8th of June, 1982 passed by the, then, Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1981. It would not be out of place to mention here that trial commenced on a charge of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, the provisions of which were, however, found to be not attracted as a consequence where of the appellant was acquitted on that charge but was found guilty for committing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as stated above.2. There was a big plot numbered as 784 in village Bamhaura Lodi within police circle, Udaipur, district Bara Banki. The area of this plot was about 24 and a half bighas and it was known as 'Jheel-ki-Zamin'. It lies within the territorial limits of Gaon Sabha Nirwan-Nagar. Yet another plot bearing number 792 known as...
Jitendra Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Alok Ranjan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1183
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. Present : Mr. Alok Ranjan, I.A.S.Mr. M. P. Aneja, Town Planner,Mr. P. P. Dwivedi, Superintendent Government Garden,Mr. C. B. Tripathi, Dy. Director, Sports,Mr. K. K. Chaturvedi, Sports Officer,Mr. U. N. Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Allahabad Development Authority,Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of State (In court),Mr. R. C. Sinha, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. R. P. Singh (in chambers),Mr. R. C. Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Dr. R. G. Padia, Advocate.2. Upon orders of 28 July, 1990, the matter is fixed for today. To implement the judgment, to resurrect the park, parties before the court desired an adjournment of three weeks so that they could get together and co-ordinate the steps to comply with the directions in the judgment. The Court, on 28 July, 1990 observed:'.................. for this purpose the court adjourns the proceedings to a date after three weeks by which time the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari will be in a position ...
Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT44(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of a show cause notice dated 22-5-1982 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act - as it stood at the relevant time.2. The petitioner Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of sheet glass. Sheet glass is subjected to excise duty under Schedule I to the Act. The petitioner commenced production in January, 1976. For selling its products it established its own depots in several cities of the country. Some sales were also effected at the factory. In the year 1976, the petitioner submitted a price list for approval, in which he disclosed the wholesale cash price for each of its sale depots separately. He wanted different wholesale price to be fixed for goods sold at each of its depots. The petitioner was called upon to furnish certain material relating to cost of production, sale vouchers issued by the depots, sale price at the facto...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitabl ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR745(All)
R.A. Sharma, J.1. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Appellate Tribunal referred, at the instance of the Department under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respon-dent-assessee a trust created by the instrument executed on April 24, 1958, is a public charitable and religious trust and its income is exempt from tax under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?We have answered this question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee in Income-tax Reference No. 372 of 1977 (CIT v. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (No. 1) : [1990]186ITR728(All) ).2. For the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 pertaining to the same assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the same question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Act for its opinion.3. In view of our decision in Income-tax Reference No. 372 of 1977 (CIT v. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Tru...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitabl ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)87CTR(All)213; [1990]186ITR728(All); [1990]53TAXMAN112(All)
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court the following question of law for its opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent-assessee, a trust created by the instrument executed on April 24, 1958, is a public charitable and religious trust and its income is exempt from tax under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee-trust was created on April 24, 1958, with the following objects and purposes : '(i) For giving monetary help to poor deserving members of the Vaisya community. (ii) For giving financial help by way of gift, on loan without interest, to enable poor deserving members of the Vaisya community to set up any business, profession or vocation. (iii) For giving financial help in the shape of money, books or otherwise for education (prim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »