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.
Pratappur Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC287; 1991LC34(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT452(All)
ORDERR.R. Misra, J.1. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.2. The petitioner is a company doing the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. During the course of production of sugar the petitioner obtains molasses as a byproduct. The production of molasses is a dutiable item and attracts Central Excise duty. The production, sale, supply and distribution as well as preservation of molasses is regulated under the U.P. Seera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder. Under the said U.P. Seera Niyantran Adhiniyam the Controller of Molasses exercises complete control over the production, sale, supply and distribution of molasses. On an application made for the supply of molasses the Controller of Molasses allots the quantity to the needy persons. That is how the molasses is removed from the factory but before that Central Excise duty is also paid thereon. For the crushing season 1987-88, no doubt, molasses was produced by the petitioner but it was produced in exce...
Hcl Limited (Reprographics Division) and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC290
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government.2. Petitioner is a manufacturer of Photo copier Machines amongst others. The goods in question were 'new excisable goods' within the meaning of Clause (b) of Rule 173-CC of the Central Excise Rules. Petitioner accordingly submitted a classification/price list as contemplated by the said Rule. He submitted the same in the prescribed pro forma (Part V- for excisable goods for sale in retail by the assessee/related persons of Rule 6 and the Schedule of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975). In this proforma the petitioner showed the value of these machines at Rs. 27,083. While approving the said list the Assistant Collector, Central Excise enhanced the value to Rs. 37,185.95p. He also made an endorsement to the effect that the said approval is provisional as contemplated by Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules (We are not able to set out the said endorsement in full for the reason ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Hero Devi Tandon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR39(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. It is not disputed by counsel for the Revenue that the facts stated in para 2 of the Tribunal's order under Section 256(1) represent the correct state of facts. If that is so, these applications must be dismissed.2. Identical issues have been adjudicated earlier by the Tribunal and the applications under Sections 256(1) and 256(2) have been dismissed. May be that the Revenue is approaching the Supreme Court against this Court's order under Section 256(2) but that cannot be a reason for directing reference of the question which stands concluded by the earlier decision of this court.3. The applications are dismissed....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kiran Family Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR508(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. Common questions are sought to be raised in these three applicationsunder Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, failure on the part of the Income-tax Officer to make proper and adequate enquiries is by itself not sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 263 which confers jurisdiction in respect of an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in view of the following decisions : -- 1. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT : [1975]99ITR375(Delhi) . 2. Kanhaiyalal v. CIT . 3. Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO : [1975]101ITR1(KAR) . (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order under Section 263 in view of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Rampyari Saraogi : [1968]67ITR84(SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT : [1973]88ITR323(SC) ? (3) Whether the Tribunal is correct i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarika Saree House
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR517(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The assessee was served on November 27, 1990, but no one appears on its behalf.2. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue is asking this court to direct the reference of the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment in the status of an association of persons was not properly made by the Income-tax Officer ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer cannot change the status of an assessee as the determination of status is a part of the assessment order ?' Having heard learned standing counsel for the Revenue, we are of the opinion that question No. 1 does arise from the order of the Tribunal but not question No. 2. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to state only question No. 1 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.3. The income-tax application is answered acc...
Atma Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR567(All)
ORDER--Applicability of s. 139(4) not attracted to facts of case, as return not filed before assessmentHELD:So far as the question whether the Tribunal Bench have correctly interpreted the provisions of s. 139(4), whereas the provisions have been amended w.e.f. 1-4-1989, and shall also be applicable to the earlier assessment year is concerned it can not be referred for more than one reason. Firstly, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal, as pointed out by the Tribunal in its order under s. 256(1). Secondly, s. 139(4) can have no conceivable application to the facts of this case when, admittedly, the return was not filed before the making of the assessment but was filed thereafter.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Reference--QUESTION NOT ARISING OUT OF TRIBUNAL'S ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Motor Transport Servi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR13(All); [1991]56TAXMAN229(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal in law, justified in taking into consideration the depreciation suffered by the buses in question in estimating the net taxable income?'2. The respondent-assessee did not file any returns for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1956-57. However, on the basis of certain material, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.wherein it was claimed that the buses belonged to the members individually, and that no income arising from the plying of those buses was assessable in the hands of the assessee. Its case was that the income of each bus should be assessed separately in the hands of its respective owner. This case was, however, rejected and assessment was made treating the re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grand Hotel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR153(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue is asking for the following question to be referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,26,536on the reconstruction of the hotel building is revenue expenditure and allowable ?'2. We have seen the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) clearly records the finding that there was no fresh construction and that what was indeed done was to restore the building to its earlier position and to repair the damage caused by the fire to the hotel building. If this is the finding of fact, which has been accepted by the Tribunal, the expenditure cannot be held to be capital expenditure.3. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ...
State of U.P. Vs. Ram Ajorey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2020
1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27-7-1978 acquitting all the above named respondents under Section 302/34, I.P.C. passed by Sri. G.S.N. Tripathi, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Basti.2. To appreciate the facts of the case the following pedigree as quoted in the judgment would be of help.Molhu|____________________________________________| | |Gur Charan Gur Prased Gokul| | |Ram Ajorey Died issueless |(Accused- | Respondent) _____________________________|____| |Sewa Lal Mewa Lal(widow Smt. Sobha) (Deceased)P.W. 1 Smt. Dhanraji alias Prema alleging herself to be the wife of Mewa Lal (deceased) lodged an oral F.I.R. at P.S. Dumariaganj, District Basti on 1-3-1978 at about 2 P.M. in the night along with village Chaukidar Dukkhi and others and accused-respondent Jai Ram had also been taken having been apprehended on the spot. According to Smt. Dhanraji Ram Ajorey had filed a case against her husband and for that he had been coming to him for the last 3-4 days...
Pooran Chandra Rastogi Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2430
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 7-12-1982 passed by Sri R. K. Khanna, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (West), U.P., Luck-now in Case No. 11 of 1974 State v. P.C. Rastogi, convicting the appellant under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to six months' R.I. in one count and six months' R.I. with another and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the respective counts and in default of payment of fine to a further R.I. of three months making the sentences in each count to a run concurrently and directing the sentence in default of payment of fine to run consecutively.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 1973 the appellant was working as Consolidation Officer, Upaira, Zila Meerut. A case pertaining to mutation in re : Jaiprakash v. Permanand was pending in the Court of the appellant and 3rd May, 1973 was fixed for hearing. Jaiprakash P.W. 1 came ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »