Allahabad Court September 1990 Judgments
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD239(All.)
1. (1) to (8) [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 9. In both these appeals filed by the revenue, grounds are common, hence they are disposed of together. Ground Nos. land 2 are regarding the interpretation of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the assessee on the basis of the notice issued by the assessing officer to reopen the case under Section 147(a)of the IT Act, 1961.10. The brief facts are that the original assessments for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were completed on 5-1-1973.Thereafter notices under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 12-3-1976 were issued and served on the assessee. These were challenged by the assessee through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and its judgment in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (No. 1) v. ITO [1979] 117 ITR 719 and Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (No. 2) v.ITO [1979] 117 ITR 733. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghafur Darzi and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3019
K.C. Bhargava, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 5-7-1982 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, convicting the appellants Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life. All of them have further been convicted Under Section 394, IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. It may be mentioned that Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 1982 has been filed by all the appellants through their learned counsel, while the other three appeals have been filed by each of the accused persons through jail. As all these appeals are against the same judgment and order, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts of the case, as disclosed by the prosecution, are that Subhan, son-in-law, of Smt. Batola deceased, complainant, lodged a written report Ext. Ka-1 dated 23-9-1981 at P.S. Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Limited, Unit Chunar Cement Fac ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(33)LC655(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that though it has filed appeals along with stay petitions as far back as 16.2.1990 no orders have been passed on the stay petitions and at the same time, the authorities are proceeding to recover the disputed amount of duty.2. The petitioner is a Corporation wholly owned and controlled by the State Government.3. We see no justification for the appellate authority not passing orders on these stay petitions all these months. In the circumstances, we have no option but to pass the following order:Within one week of the petitioner's producing a certified copy of this order before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall pass final orders on the stay applications within two months from such date. If the certified copy is not so produced before the appellate authority or stay applications have already been disposed of, this order shall not operate. But if the certified copy of this o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mansa Ram and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(All)81; [1991]190ITR453(All)
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Two questions are referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the Revenue.2. The question referred at the instance of the assessee reads thus :'(1) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer on October 31, 1972, under Section 23(3)/33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was valid in law in view of the assessment order dated March 14, .1967, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows :'(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the additions other than the addition of Rs. 4,09,067 on account of speculation loss and Rs. 82,000 being cash credit in the name of Sri. S. D. Mittal made by the Income-tax Officer could not be legally sustained, i...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR378(All); [1991]54TAXMAN62(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, oh the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessment was validly reopened under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In this case, an assessment was made on July 25, 1969, for the assessment year 1967-68. Subsequent thereto, it appears that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner brought to the notice of the Income-tax Officer that the computation made by him of the assessee's income from other sources was not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 57 and 58 of the Income tax Act and that the deductions granted by the Income-tax Officer are contrary to law. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 147(b) read with Section 148, reopened the assessment and passed another assessment order. The assessee's appeal against the same was...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Tulsi and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(All)99; [1991]187ITR685(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the cinema building and the tube lights together with fittings do not constitute 'plant' within the meaning of Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, consequently, the assessee was not entitled to development rebate thereon and depreciation at 10% on building?'2. The petitioner is running a cinema theatre in a pucca well constructed building fitted with all necessary fittings like tube-lights, furniture, fans,fire extinguishers and, other fixtures. The income from the said theatre is being assessed as business income in the hands of the assessee. The assessee claimed that the cinema building including its fixtures should be treated as 'plant' for the purpose of depreciation and development rebate which was not accede...
Tag this Judgment!Hardoi Roadways (Private) Union, Hardoi and Another Vs. Contonment Boa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All59; (1990)2UPLBEC1253
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Pititioner No. 2 is an existing operator holding stage carriage permit on Lucknow-Shahjahanpur route. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be an Union of private bus-operators, plying their buses on Lucknow-Shahjahanpur route. Both the petitioners have challenged fixation of bus-stand/parking place by Cantonment-Board, Shahjahanpur and charging parking fees in excess of the rates notified by auction notice, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.2. At the admission stage the Cantonment Board Shahjahanpur has filed a counter affidavit. The respondent No. 3, who is contractor of the Cantonment Board, has also been served, but has not put in any appearance before this Court. The writ petition is accordingly being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court.3. .Hardoi Roadways (Private) Union, petitioner No. 1, in our opinion, is not entitled to file the writ petition for and on behalf of transport operators. Right to ply stage carriage is derived by ope...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Chandra Bhan and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR260(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is claiming interest for two periods in this writ petition, namely, June 28, 1967, to September 8, 1972 and again from April 25, 1974 to October 6, 1978. A few facts may be stated to appreciate the aforesaid claim.2. The petitioner was a partner in a partnership firm. Assessments were made for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. Certain penalties were also levied for those assessment years. The petitioner paid a major portion of the penalties imposed and questioned the levy of penalties. By an order dated March 28, 1967, the Tribunal set aside the penalties with the result that the penalties paid become refundable.3. It, however, appears that the Department was not satisfied with the orders of the Tribunal dated March 28, 1967, and they sought for a reference. Ultimately, the reference was rejected on September 8, 1972. On April 25, 1974, two refund vouchers were issued in favour of the petitioner for the amount paid by him plus interest f...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Harpreet Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(All)43; [1991]187ITR679(All)
R.A. Sharma, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has referred the following two questions to this court for its opinion ;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to standard deduction under Section 16(i) on the ground that the remuneration paid to the joint managing director was not salary ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the deduction under Section 80U of the Act allowed by the Income-tax Officer was rightly withdrawn by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The assessee, an individual by status, is a shareholder and also a director of a company, Hurana Motor and General Finance Private Limited(hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Pyare Lal Sharma Memorial Trust Society Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR432(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by Pandit Pyare Lal Sharma Memorial Trust Society, Meerut, for quashing the assessment orders dated March 28, 1988, March 30, 1989, and October 20, 1990, passed in the case of Moot Chand Sharbati Devi Hospital Trust, Meerut, on the ground that the observations made therein are prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. On a writ petition being filed, this court did not think it fit to call upon the respondents to file a counter-affidavit. The writ petition was, however, kept pending. Meanwhile, the Commissioner of Income-tax has issued a notice under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act proposing to revive the assessment order dated March 19, 1987, which is the assessment order made in the case of the petitioner's own case. In the said assessment order, the Income-tax Officer has accepted the petitioner's contention and treated his income as nil. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner's notice under Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »