Allahabad Court February 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.
Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991LC178(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT493(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority dated 17/18-2-1983. By this order the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority has classified the torch switches manufactured by the petitioner assessee under Tariff Item No. 61.2. The petitioner manufactures inter alia dry cell battery torches. It manufactures switches used in those torches. Question arose whether these switches should be classified under Tariff Item No. 61 or under Tariff Item No. 68. The duty under T.I. 61 is higher than the rate under T.I. 68. Tariff Item 61 reads as follows:-'Electric Lighting Fittings namely :- Switches, Plugs, and Sockets, all kinds; Chokes and Starters for fluorescent Tubes.'Tariff Item 68 is, of course, residuary item and it is not in dispute before us that if the said switches, do not fall under Item 61, they would fall under Tariff Item 68.3. In the first instance, the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority decided ...
P.C.F. Krishi Tantrashala Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cce and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)LC31(Allahabad)
1. This writ petition was filed with the allegation that the Appellate Authority Collector Central Excise (Appeals) is not available at Ghaziabad, with the result that the petitioner is not able to file appeal or obtain any interim order from the Appellate Authority. However, today it is stated before us by Sri V.K. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel for the Central Government that the appellate authority has been posted and is now working at Ghaziabad. In such circumstances there is no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is open to the petitioner to approach the said appellate authority for such interim relief as he may be advised. If any such application for stay or other interim direction is filed, the appellate authority shall consider it in accordance with law and dispose of as expeditiously as possible.2. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation....
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vijaipat Singhania (individual) and Vee ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR308(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules overrides the provisions of Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is open to the Revenue to rely upon Rule 1D even though no specific argument was raised before the Tribunal ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in following the valuation as made by the valuers even though their valuation was not based on the statutory method of valuation provided under Rule 1D ? (4) Whether the valuers to whom the valuation of shares was referred under Section 24(6) of the Act were, in law, bound to follow the method of valuation prescribed by Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules ?' It is brought to our notice that identical questions arising in identical circumstances h...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jetha Nand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR650(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption as laid down under Clause (xxxi) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the value of the oil mill machinery owned by the assessee, even though the oil mill was not run by the assessee but by another person, to whom it had been rented out ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment years concerned are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee was the owner of an oil mill engaged in manufacture of oil. 3. He was not himself doing the business. He had let out the mill on rent. In his wealth-tax assessment, he claimed exemption for the amount representing the value of machinery comprised in the said oil mill under Clause (xxxi) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act. This was re...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. H. Rahman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(All)39; [1991]189ITR307(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner setting aside the assessment on the ground that the Wealth-tax Officer should have given reasons for rejecting the report of the valuers ?' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 16A(6) of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer is not statutorily obliged to adopt the valuation estimated by the Valuation Officer under Section 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act and complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation Officer ?' What happened in this case was that the assessee had filed a report of the valuer in support of his valuation, It was not accepted. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter to the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Expanded Metal Manufacturers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(All)20; [1991]189ITR317(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 Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that the interest amounting to Rs. 15,642 was allowable as business expenditure ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. It was engaged in the business of expanding of iron metal by mechanical process and its supply. It started a new business of manufacture of rubber products under the name and style of M/s. Lokesh Rubber Industries. For that purpose, it raised a loan of Rs. 1,56,452. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year concerned herein (assessment year 1976-77), the rubber factory did not work. The assessee claimed deduction for the amount paid by way of interest on the said loan which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, however, the Appellate ...
Ashok Kumar Alias Bhura Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2859
P.P. Gupta, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused appellant, Ashok Kumar alias Bhura, against the judgment and order dated 22-2-1989, convicting the appellant Under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years by Sri P. C. Mathur, III Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 223/88.2. The appellant was charged Under Section 376, I.P.C. for having committed rape on Smt. Bhagwati, wife of Mahabir Singh, resident of Jagdeo Nagaria, P. S. Gonda, district Aligarh, on 7-7-1986 at about 10-00 p.m.3. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal, in brief, as disclosed in the FIR, are indicated below.4. Smt. Bhagwati was sleeping on a Chabutara in front of her house. Her son, Bhupendra Singh, aged about 9 years, and her younger son, Yogendra Singh, aged about one year, were also sleeping there. Her Jethani, Smt. Banshi, wife of Fateh Singh, and her father-in-law, Dr. Man Singh, son of Brindaban, were sleeping in front of their houses close by.5. At abou...
Kanthal India Limited Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, Asstt. Cce a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1992(37)LC32(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 21st May 1983, issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range II, Varanasi to the petitioner. Under this notice the petitioner is called upon to show cause as to why he should not be required to pay an amount of Rs. 20,88,111.02 towards the duty short paid. The period for which this duty is demanded is December 1978 to 31st March 1983. The reasons for which the show-cause notice is given, are mentioned in annexure-A to the show cause notice.Annexure-A recites:During the period from Dec. 1978 to March 1983 they knowingly and deliberately suppressed the material facts for the correct classification of their end product 'Electrical Resistance wires' under tariff item No. 33(b)(ii) and continued to pay duty on their product wrongly under tariff item No. 26-AA at the much lower rate than the rates actually they required to pay duty under tariff item No. 33(B)(ii); consequently they have made sh...
V. K. JaIn Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR89(All); [1992]60TAXMAN69(All)
The judgement of the court was delivered byB. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - This writ petition is directed against a notice issued under section 16A(2) of the Wealth-tax Act by the Valuation Officer, Circle I, Income-tax Department, Kanpur, to the petitioner. The petitioner says that he has not been served with a copy of the order made by the Wealth-tax Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A, and that all that he has been served with is the aforesaid notice from the Valuation Officer. The impugned notice proposes to determine the market value of the assets, mentioned therein as on March 31, 1969, to March 31, 1978, except March 31, 1973.In this writ petition, we are concerned with five assessment years, namely, 1969-70, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The valuation dates for all these five assessment years are clearly covered by the notice aforesaid. The ground on which the petitioner challenges the said notice is that (i) for the first three assessment proceedings were conclude...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jagphool Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR295(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Chintamani Bros., a firm engaged in printing and sale of cotton sarees, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) read with the Explanation to Clause (xxxii) of Section 5(1) of the Act and that the assessee's interest therein was entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under the said provisions ?'2. It is brought to our notice by learned standing counsel for the Revenue that this question is concluded by a decision of this court in CWT v. Radhey Mohan Narain : [1982]135ITR372(All) . It has been held therein that where the assessee was engaged in purchasing plain white cloth and converting it into printed bed-spreads, scarves, garments, etc., by a process of dyeing and printing, the unit constitutes an 'industrial unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »