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. Smt. Indramani Devi Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(All)26; [1991]189ITR124(All)
B. P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of the assesses in respect of interest paid to M/s. J. K. Woollen . ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Bhumi and Bhavan Kar amounting to Rs. 5,618 was an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. We shall state the relevant facts in each question separately. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the question is whether the interest paid by the owner of a property on the mortgage executed by him in respect of that property is deductible under Clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. The assessment years concerned herein are 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. By the Finance Act, 1968, Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1...
Rehtu Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2296
G.D. Dube, J.1. The above two appeals have arisen out of judgment and order of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, holding appellants Rehtu and Biran guilty of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and convicting and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Since the two appeals arise from same judgment, we are deciding them together.2. The prosecution case was that in the Ramlila of Unchagaon, some quarrel had taken place between Iqbal and appellant Rehtu. Thereafter, the dispute had been settled by the intervention of the residents of Manglur where the deceased resided and that of Unchagaon. At about 9-00 to 10-00 a.m. on 23-3-1978, appellant Rehtu came to the house of reporter Vedpal Singh (P. W. 1) and started abusing the family members. At that time, Pitam (deceased) and Om Vir were also present. They asked Rehtu to desist from abusing. Meanwhile, Iqbal had also arrived and he gave few slaps to Rehtu. Thereupon, Rehtu went away stating that he will...
Shambhu Nath Chakravarti Vs. Deputy Director of Investigation, Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR424(All)
ORDER UNDER S. 132(5)--Appeal lies thereagainst--Writ does not lie to quash proceedings under s. 132.HELD :The seizure was effected under s. 132(1). Thereafter, proceedings have been taken and an order has been passed under sub-s. (5) thereof. Against this order, an appeal is provided. No order can be passed except to observe that it will be open to the petitioner to urge all such points available to him in law in the appeal provided by law against an order passed under sub-s. (5) of s. 132. The writ petition is, dismissed.Income Tax Act 1961 s.132 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Habibullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR381(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to support the finding that the assessee believed that he was under no statutory obligation to file a return and whether, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation of the assessee constituted, in law, 'reasonable cause' ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years concerned are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee was previously doing business in India but in 1961 he went to England. He obtained the citizenship of that country. However, towards the end of 1966 or the beginning of 1967, he came to India. During the previous years relevant to the aforesaid assessment years, he was in India. A raid was conducted at his premises and certain cash deposits standing in his name in certain banks werediscovered. The assessee's expl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram NaraIn Pratap Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR361(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question at the instance of the Revenue:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the weighted deduction on air freight expenses in spite of a clear prohibition contained to this effect in Section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a firm. It derives income from sales of perfumes and scents. It also exports goods to other countries. For the assessment year 1975-76, it claimed weighted deduction on certain expenditure incurred by it under Section 35B(1)(b) of the Act which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the weighted deduction, and it was confirmed by the Tribunal on an appeal preferred by the Department. The petition is against the order of the Tribunal.3. The expenditure concerned was in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pankaj Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: [1991]188ITR184(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following two identical questions in all the six references before us :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Income-tax Officer was neither competent to withdraw interest already allowed under Section 214 nor levying interest under Section 217(1A) while revising the assessment under Section 154/155 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in entertaining an appeal against the withdrawing of interest under Section 214 and charging of interest under Section 217(1A) ?' 2. The assessee was a partner in a firm, Messrs. Auto Sales, Allahabad. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment of the assessee before the assessment of the firm for that year was completed. The assessee's share of profit in the firm was taken...
Tayyaba Bibi Vs. State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: I(1991)DMC596
S.R. Bhargava, J.1. The revision petition and the criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have arisen from the same proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and for avoiding repetition are being disposed of by a common judgment. Lower courts record has been summoned and perused by this Court, parties have been heard at length at admission stage and the revision and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being disposed of finally at this stage according to Rules of the Court.2. What appears is that Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui is an employee in Mono Section of Government Press, Allahabad. In 1982 Smt. Tayyaba Bibi filed objection before the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- with the allegation that she is his wedded wife, that she is unable to maintain herself that her husband deserted her and has another wife from whom he has four children. Mohd. Abdul Haseeb Siddiqui resisted the application and...
Vijay Kumar Ajit Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(All)152; [1991]191ITR391(All); [1991]55TAXMAN388(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C.J. - Heard counsel for the Revenue None appears for the assessee.Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two question are referred by the Tribunal, one at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred at the instance of the assessee reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 40A(3) were applicable in respect of the cash payments of Rs, 3,800 and Rs. 10,291 made by the assessee to Agra Steel Traders and Iron and Steel Consuming Corporation, Respectively ?'The question referred at the instance of the Revenue reads :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 25,000 made in cash amount to an advance and whether the provision of section 40A(3) are hit ?'The assessee is a registered firm dealing in purchase and sale of iron, steel sheets and cuttings, etc., The assessment year c...
Keshav Deo Poddar Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR480(All)
The petitioner says that he has purchased the property in question in an auction held by a civil court in execution of a decree obtained by the Punjab National Bank and others against the firm, Babulal Motilal (Execution Case No. 74 of 1953 in O. S. No. 254 of 1952, Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Baboo Lal Moti Lal, on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Aligarh). The petitioner says that the auction was held on April 29, 1956, and confirmed on May 29, 1956. He says that a sale certificate has been issued to him and that he was put in possession and that thereafter he substantially improved the property by making further constructions. While so, he says, on December 14, 1988, the Tax Recovery Officer issued a citation in a sum of Rs. 14,715 said to be due against the firm, Babulal Motilal, and towards realisation of the said amount, attached the petitioners house aforesaid. The petitioner says that the said house cannot be proceeded against for recovery of arrears due from the firm. He also say...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himalaya Cold Storage and Iron Industri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR305(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. No one is present for the respondent. Heard learned standing counsel for the Revenue.2. Learned counsel contends that, on the date the Income-tax Officer invoked his power under Section 154 of the Act and passed the order, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts was not there. In our opinion, the following two questions of law do arise from the order of the Tribunal as suggested by the Revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that allowability of investment allowance to cold storage is a disputable issue when the issue stands already settled following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chowgule and Co. (P) Ltd. [1981] 47 STC 124 which was followed by the Hon'ble High Courts in Delhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1985]156ITR97(Delhi) and CIT v. Mittal Ice and Cold Storage :...