Allahabad Court January 1991 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. K.N. Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR212(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, was legally correct in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order that only 50 per cent, of the income from the business styled as Messrs, Moradabad Gun House, Moradabad, was to be included in the hands of Shri K.N. Sharma for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69,-even though, in the original return filed for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee had himself declared the entire income from the said business ?'2. The assessment years relevant are 1967-68 and 1968-69. It appears that, for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee, in his return, disclosed the total income derived from the business styled as Messrs. Moradabad Gun House, Moradabad, as his exclusive income but before the assessment was made, he filed a ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raghubir Dayal Jai Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR170(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-taxAct, 1961, the following question has been stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E': 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assesses was entitled to the deduction of a sum of Rs. 78,569, being 'the assessee's accrued and ascertained liability for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1968-69. By that year, Section 43B had not come into force. The assessee was maintaining his accounts on the mercantile basis ; therefore, purchase tax collected by him, which was payable by him but not paid during the relevant accounting year, is all the same deductible as held by this court in CIT v. Poonam Chand Trilok Chand : [1976]105ITR618(All) and Addl. CIT v. Durga Prasad Kamta Prasad : [1991]188ITR573(All) .3. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee and against...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram NaraIn Shivji Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR195(All)
1. Heard counsel for both the parties.2. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that rasoi expenses were not entertainment expenses and hence were allowable deduction under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265, this question has to be answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Answered accordingly.4. No costs....
Behari Lal Agarwal Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-cum-income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR267(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against, a notice issued under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, proposing to reopen the assessment. The notice, of course, is in the prescribed pro forma and does not disclose any reasons.2. The petitioner's case is that he had made a full and proper disclosure of all the relevant facts and that an assessment was made on that basis. He also filed an appeal though unsuccessful. The grievance of the petitioner is that, after several years, the matter is sought to be reopened without there being any proper ground or material warranting such reopening.3. This writ petition was entertained and the respondents were called upon to file a counter. They have filed a counter-affidavit. We have perused the same.4. We find that there is neither any allegation that there was any failure to disclose the facts or suppression of material facts nor is there any allegation that the authorities received some information on the basis of whic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moradabad Gun House
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR211(All)
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been stated by the Tribunal;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer's order was covered by Section 184(4) or Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to be appealable ?'2. In view of the Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Nagarmal Bisheshar Lal : [1991]190ITR468(All) , the question referred must be answered in the following words :'The order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to condone the delay in filing the application for registration of the firm is appealable inasmuch as in fact, it amounts to refusing to register the firm and thus falls under Section 185(1)(b) which is expressly made appealable.'3. The question is answered accordingly.4. No costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Panchaiti Akhara Nirmal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(All)41; [1991]192ITR186(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 to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the agricultural income of the asses-see could not be considered for the purposes of Section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'It is brought to our notice that, in the case of this very assessee, for the previous assessment year, this court has dealt with any answered an identical question in I. T. R. No. 747 of 1978, disposed of on December 18, 1990 (CIT v. Panchayati Akhara Nirmal : [1991]190ITR121(All) ).2. Following the said judgment, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs....
Shankerji Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR563(All); [1991]55TAXMAN380(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in upholding the refusal of registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act ? (ii) Whether, even after accepting the existence of a partnership-firm by taking its status as an unregistered firm and without pointing out any non-compliance with any requirement under the Income-tax Act for the claim of the registration under the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is legally justified in refusing registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, while the averments made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were not borne out from the record and inasmuch as they were contradictory to the documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal is legally justified in relying upon the observation ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Hari Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR686(All)
1. Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following two questions have been stated by the Tribunal :'1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that preparation of biris from tendu leaves and tobacco can be called 'manufacturing or processing of goods' within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? 2. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the firm, Messrs Ram Kishan Daya Ram and Co., was an industrial undertaking even though the firm did not prepare biris by itself ?' 2. It is brought to our notice that both the questions are concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this court in CWT v. Mubarakali Khan and CWT v. Mujahid Ali Khan : [1980]123ITR101(All) , wherein it has been held that preparation of biris from tendu leaves and tobacco can be called 'manufacturing or processing of goods' within...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR327(All)
1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two questions have been stated by the Tribunal :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, M/s. Goven Brothers Private Ltd., former managing agents of the assessee-company having been appointed as 'special officers' with almost the same powers and the same remuneration as payable to them in their capacity as managing agents, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in its litigation with the Company Law Board was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee-company ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses of Rs. 29,190 could be allowed as a business expenditure ?' 2. It is brought to our notice by counsel for the assessee that similar questions for the previous assessment year (1969-70) were referred to this court and have been answered in favour of the assessee in this court's decision in Rampur Disti...
Devi Lal Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR896]; (1992)IILLJ531All; (1991)1UPLBEC480
R.K.K. Trivedi, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated March 15, 1990 (Annexure 16) by which he has been removed from service. The petitioner was serving as Inspector in the Railway Protection Force.2. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. L.P. Naithani has pressed this petition on the point that the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer was not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. This averment has been made in paragaraph 30 of the writ petition. Shri Lal Ji Sinha, appearing for the respondents, has relied on paragraph 34 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the report was not given along with the impugned order but it was supplied to the petitioner subsequently. In my opinion, the other questions rai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »