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.
Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: 1992(41)LC619(Allahabad)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.2.1980 passed by the Appellate Collector Central Excise, New Delhi (Annexure VII to the writ petition). The order recites that a revision lies against the old order under Section 36 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he may now be permitted to avail of the remedy of the revision. We see no objection to grant him that permission. However, it may be noted that since the passing of the said order the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act have undergone an amendment and Section 36, which provided a revision with the Government is now re-enacted as Section 35-B. The amended provisions also provide for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) vide Section 35B(1)(b). It is accordingly directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the CEGAT within two months from today against the aforesaid order dated 27.2.1980, it may be ente...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Nabi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR102(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-taxAct, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has statedthe following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision is not vitiated in law and whether there was material before the Tribunal for holding that the burden of proving absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect in filing the return of income has been discharged by the assessee within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 9,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. He is a commission agent in vegetables. For the assessment year 1968-69, he filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 6,100. The assessment was, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR132(All)
1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer was one under Section 185(1)(b) and not under Section 184(4) of the Income-tax Act.'2. This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a decision of this court in ITO v. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash : [1979]117ITR594(All) . Agreeing with the decisions of the Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, this court held that an order passed by the Income-tax Officer refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for renewal of registration of a firm is appealable under Section 246(1)(j), since it amounts to refusal to grant registration. It may be noticed that the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 184 confers upon an Income-tax Officer the power to condone the delay in filing the application for registration, if ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madho Lal Su Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR142(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has stated the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the rasoi expenses of Rs. 14,227 incurred on the assessee's customers could not be disallowed as entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This question is concluded against the assessee by a Full Bench decision of this court in Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265.3. Mr. Jain, however, submits that a part of the rasoi expenses was incurred on providing meals, etc., to the employees and that would be deductible expenditure. We do not, however, find any such plea having been put forward by the assessee before any of the three authorities under the Act.4. Mr. Jain argues further that the Tribunal in this case has merely followed the previous year's order and, therefore, what was good ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chhotey Lal Radhey Shyam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR316(All)
1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 15,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) read with its Explanation ?'2. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee filed a return disclosing a turnover of Rs. 53,696 whereupon he showed a gross profit of 5%. Certain slight additions were made to the income so disclosed. There was also an addition of Rs. 7,300 as profit under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act. Though this transaction was not disclosed in the return, the assessee filed a revised return disclosing the said item, after the very first hearing and before the assessment was completed. The Income-tax Officer determined his income at Rs. 20,070.3. Proceedings were then taken under Section 271(1)(c) for levying penal...
Narendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1531
ORDERG.D. Dube, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jaunpur, refusing to implead the revisionist as a party.2. The facts of this case are very brief. On an application of Jai Prakash (opposite party No. 10) and report of Station Officer, Police Station Buxa, district Jaunpur, the Magistrate had passed a preliminary order dated 3rd August, 1988. On 30-8-1988, the revisionist had moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that he was owner and in possession over the property. He was away at Bombay and when the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) were initiated. The learned Magistrate has dropped the proceedings on 13-9-1988 on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He released the property in favour of opposite parties 2 to 9. The application of the revisionist for being impleaded was also rejected. It is wor...
Brahmanand Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3238
ORDERG.D. Dube, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Mau. The Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by the opposite party and set aside the order of the Magistrate making conditional order Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) final.2. The facts of the case are not much disputed. On the report of the Station Officer, Koopaganj, district Mau dated 6-8-1989 complaining that Swami Nath Rai has encroached public passage by keeping bricks across it, a conditional order was issued on 23-8-1989, asking Swami Nath Rai to remove the obstacle. He appeared on the date fixed and stated that no public passage existed. The opposite-party filed an application requesting the Magistrate to start proceedings Under Section 144 of the Code. The learned Magistrate had asked the Naib Tahsildar to make a local inspection. Swami Nath Rai was asked to produce evidence regarding denial. Besides other e...
Ram Chandra Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1488
G.D. Dube, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ballia convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 147, I.P.C. four years each under Sections 364 and 201 read with Section 149, IPC and imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Originally six persons namely, Ramnath, Kedar Pandey, Jagdish Pandey, Ramshankar and Shiv Shankar alias Shiv were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 364 and 302 and 201 IPC. The last two sections are read with Section 149, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has held Ramnath, Kedar Pandey, Jagdish Pandey, Ramashankar and Shivshankar alias Shiv not guilty and thereby acquitted them. Only the appellant was found guilty of the offence for which he had been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment as stated above.2. The prosecution case was that 5 days before 17-1-1977 Ramchandra, Ramnath, and Kedar had u...
Rajdoot Fan Industries Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC330(All)
A.N. Varma, J.1. Vide an order dated April 12, 1981, the petitioner was granted eligibility certificate stating that it would be entitled to exemption for a period of five years from March 9, 1984. Armed with this eligibility certificate, the petitioner started carrying on its business assuming that it was entitled to exemption for a period of five years from March 9, 1984. On September 10, 1987, however, the Joint Director of Industries sent a letter to the petitioner stating that its unit was entitled to exemption only for the period April 1, 1984 to March 8, 1987 and that it was not entitled to exemption for the period of five years as granted by the earlier order dated April 12, 1984. This letter was followed by another letter dated December 29, 1987 issued by the Joint Director of Industries to the petitioner stating that the Divisional Level Committee on a reconsideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to exemption only for a period of t...
Virendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2964
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner, who was a Naib Tehsildar, was posted, in the year 1964, in Tehsil Pooranpur, District Pilibhit, where he continued to remain uptill 1967. In connection with, and in respect of, lease of the land of the Gaon Sabha Seema, the State Government set up a vigilance enquiry against the petitioner as well as against the then Supervisor Kanungo, Teg Bahadur and Lekhpals, Chandra Kumar Dixit and Ram Singh. Sanction for prosecuting the petitioner for offences punishable Under Sections 420/468/ 120B, IPC and Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act') was accorded by the Governor on 18-11-1982. The vigilance Cell after a lapse of about eight years submitted a charge-sheet on 21-8-1983 in the Court of Special Judge, Pilibhit, against the petitioner as well as against Tej Bahadur. Chandra Kumar Dixit and Ram Singh, for prosecuting them Under Sections 420/468/ 120B, IPC and Under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »