Allahabad Court September 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. Suraji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR590(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. TWO questions are stated under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.-They are :'1. 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. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of difference between the fair market value of the land and the price at which it had been sold could be taxed as a capital gain ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, an identical question withrespect to the very same trust for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69and 1969-70 was referred to this court in I.T.R. No. 617 of 1977 and has beenanswered by a Bench of this court in favour of the assessee on August 9,1990 (CIT v. Surji Devi Kunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (No. 2) : [1990]1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cheekay Associates
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR648(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. It is brought to our notice that, for the previous assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal itself has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was, in law, justified in Holding that the assessee was an industrialundertaking?'2. This question corresponds to question No. 1 raised in this I. T. A. For the assessment year concerned in this I. T. A., however, the Tribunal refused to refer the question on the ground that, for the assessment year 1984-85, the Finance Act, 1984, defined the term 'industrial company' and since, according to that definition, the petitioner is an industrial company, no reference is called for.3. After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that a question of law in terms of question No. 1 suggested does arise and ought to be referred. It may also be noticed and it is also the case of the assessee that questions Nos. 2 and 3 are merely conseque...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand Swarup Brijendra Swarup Charitabl ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR656(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The question referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if one of the objects of a trust is to provide monetary help for marriages or sacred thread ceremonies, the trust is rendered non-charitable or non-religious or continues to remain a public charitable and religious trust ?2. An identical question was considered by this court in Income-tax Reference No. 617 of 1977 disposed of on August 9, 1990 (CIT v. Surjit DeviKunji Lal Jaipuria Charitable Trust (No, 2) : [1990]186ITR745(All) ). It was held that a stipulation of the kind referred to in the question does not render the trust a non-charitable one. Following the said decision, the question referred herein is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.3. No costs....
Shree Nath Vs. Executive Engineer, U.P. Electricity Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR54]; (1995)IIILLJ718All; (1991)2UPLBEC1187
M.L. Bhatt, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges his order of retirement. It is asserted that on the basis of incorrect entry of date of birth in his service record, he was retired prematurely. The facts lie in brief compass.2. The petitioner is a lines-man in the office of the respondent. He was firstly appointed on the post of coal coolie in Agra Electric Company Limited in the year 1967 by the Resident Engineer. Photostat copy of his appointment order is annexed with the petition as Annexure-1. The said company was taken over by the U.P. Electricity Board and employees of the Company were absorbed in the Board. That is how the petitioner came to be employed in the Board. The petitioner was promoted on the post of fuse-man by the Board.3. In the year 1716, as contended by the petitioner, he came to know about his incorrect entry of date of birth which was recorded as 1932. He made an application to the respondent for correction of his date of birth and informed him th...
Hiran Tobacco Factory Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC74; 1991LC567(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT249(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner a manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco, is seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the orders of third respondent (Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division II, Kanpur) dated 24-12-1979 (Annexures 3,4,5 and 6 to the writ petition) as well as his order dated 28-1-1980 (Annexure 7) and the consequential demand of duty.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing Khaini tobacco. It is a chewing tobacco within the meaning of the said expression as used in the Central Excise Act. Chewing tobacco was liable to excise duty, during the relevant period, under Entry No. 411(5) of the First Schedule to the Act. The rate in force prior to 1-3-1979 was 10 per cent ad valorem. On 1-3-1979 two notifications. were issued by the Central Government being Notifications No. 34/79 and 35/79, under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Notification No. 34/79 granted total exempt...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri. Chandrika Prasad and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC439
G.D. Dube, J.1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur has awarded a sum of Rs. 38, 360/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of six percent per annum to the claimants. The Tribunal had also directed that the awarded amount be divided equally amongst the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased.2. It has not been disputed that the deceased had died as result of accident which took place on 17.11.73. The deceased had boarded the bus of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The bus was being driven at a very high speed. The deceased was sitting on the seat of the conductor. The driver of the bus had tried to take over some other vehicle and during that maneuvering the deceased was thrown out in a jerk of the vehicle. He received serious injuries. Later on he died on 20.11.73 in Sir Sunder Lai Hospital, Varanasi. The Corporation had alleged in defence that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased.He did not pay heed to the direction of the Con...
Hari Sharan Sarraf Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(All)207; [1991]188ITR60(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this writ petition, the assessee is questioning the validity of an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, on March 17, 1990, on a petition filed by the assessee under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an individual. A raid under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at his business and residential premises on January 31, 1985. Taking advantage of Explanation 2 appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 273A by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with effect from October 1, 1984 (which was omitted by the finance Act, 1985, with effect from May 24, 1985), the petitioner purported to make a disclosure of his concealed unaccounted income before the Commissioner within 15 days of the said raid. He submitted revised returns within the said period in respect of the assessment years 1976-77 to 1985-86. Having filed the said returns, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner under Section 273A to waive the penalties im...
Kamala and ors. (Legal Representative of Deceased, Gaya Prasad Baya) V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR39(All)
B.P. Jeevan reddy C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated February 28, 1979, under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act.2. The petitioner is an individual. He filed returns for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 and an order of assessment was made. Subsequently, on September 20, 1971, he made a voluntary disclosure and filed returns for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69 and revised returns with respect to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. Simultaneously, he filed a petition under Sub-section (4A) of Section 271. The Income-tax Officer accepted the returns filed by the petitioner with respect to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. With respect to the subsequent years, he issued notices under Section 147/148, accepted the returns and made the assessments. According to the petitioner, his revised returns were accepted. Penalties were also levied on the petitioner.3. Now coming to the petition under Section 271(4A)...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swadeshi Cloth Dealers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR620(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. At the instance of Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that there was no agreement to charge interest from April 1, 1964, and onwards ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that no interest accrued to the assessee after April 1, 1964 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessment years concerned are 1965-66 and 1966-67. Previous year is the respective financial year. The assessee had been advancing certain amounts, from time to time, to a partnership firm, Messrs, Ram Lal Raja Ram, from the year 1956-57 onwards. At the end of each accounting year, account was being taken including interest charged at the rate of 6% per annum. The amount so calculated as on March 31, 1964, came to Rs. 37,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR637(All); [1991]54TAXMAN160(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal hasstated the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate. Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,50,729 being gratuity liability, though the amount was not settled under an irrevocable trust ?'2. From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that though no trust has been created by the assessee within the meaning of Section 36(1)(v), this amount was held payable by the petitioner under an award passed by theIndustrial Tribunal. It appears that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal covers more than one assessment year and the amount of Rs. 1,50,729 represents the liability for the assessment year concerned herein, namely, assessment year 1972-73. A Bench of this court has taken the view in Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 503, that, even though no trust is created by an assessee w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »