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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Tikam Chand Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(All)130; [1991]192ITR601(All); [1991]55TAXMAN516(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in its opinion that the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer for the sustained cash credit as part of the assessee's wealth treating them as the assessee's asset is incorrect ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Sri Tikam Chand Agrawal is its karta. The assessment years concerned are 1963-64 to 1969-70, both inclusive, seven years in all. Sri Tikam Chand Agrawal was a partner in a firm, Messrs. Chittar Mal Ram Dayal, in his capacity, as the karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In the Income-tax assessment of the said firm, Messrs. Chittar Mal Ram Dayal, in his capacity as the karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. In the income-tax assessment of the said of the said loans as income of the firm. The assessee's share in the said amounts w...
Hari Chand Ratan Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR173(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing an amount of Rs. 32,235 claimed by the assessee to be deductible on account of payment of interest towards sales tax arrears ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year concerned herein is 1972-73. The assessee was also a sales tax payee. For the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, a certain amount of sales tax was levied upon him under assessment orders dated July 25, 1958, and February 4, 1959, respectively. He did not pay the whole tax determined as due from him. He paid part of it and part of it was outstanding against him. On February 1, 1964, the U. P. Sales Tax Act was amended. The amended provisions provide for levying interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum on tax remaining unpaid with effect from February 1, 1964. Part o...
Rajneesh Saxena Vs. Suresh Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1655
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. The charges of having committed contempt has been accepted by Suresh Chandra, the contemnor, other Honarary Secretary, Committee of Management, S. M. College, Chandausi, District Moradabad. In reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the contemner, by Mr. V. S. Saxena, Advocate, that to argue the matter would only make the position worse, and that it would be better prudence that the contemnor, Suresh Chandra, leaves himself to the mercy of the Court.2. The contempt petition was heard at length, and orders were reserved after parties had an opportunity to apprise themselves with the record of the court, afresh, and the law as applicable, in reference to the contempt. This judgment will be incomplete without the facts as already noticed by this Court in it's order dated 15 November, 1990 as a consequence of which the charges had been framed. Rather than notice the facts all over again, it would he better to ref...
U.P. Legal Aid and Advise Board, and Others Vs. the State of U.P. and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All281
ORDER1. These two writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Myorpur, Mirzapur, in appeals arising out of orders passed by Forest Settlement Officer, Mirzapur, deciding the claims of Adivasis and Banvasis living in the area covered by Notification under S. 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act. In Writ Petition No. 10055 of 1989, order of respondent No. 2 passed on 22-9-1988; whereas in Writ Petition No. 10056 of 1989, order of same officer passed on 7-10-1988 have been challenged. The learned Additional District Judge, Mirzapur by his aforesaid two orders has decided as many as 459 appeals arising out of the orders passed by Forest Settlement Officer. It may be recalled that these proceedings for protecting the rights and interest of Adivasis and Banvasis living in Dudhi and Robartsganj tahsils of district Mirzapur were initiated under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20th November, 1986 ...
Bhagwandas Achchardeo Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR698(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner seeks to have the following seven questions referred to this court:'1. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the addition to the income of the assessee-firm, Rs. 1,16,500, in the absence of any finding or evidence to the effect that the cigarettes of the 'Sales Promotion Free Scheme had actually been sold away by the assessee-firm ? 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal and substance of addition of Rs. 1,16,500 being the value of the 'Sales Promotion Free Scheme' cigarettes for the distributor, are not vitiated in law as the same are based on non-consideration of various facts and circumstances as were relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue before it ? 3. Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the cigarettes of the 'Sales Promotion Free Scheme' has actually been sold away by the assessee-firm, which alone coul...
Gangeshwar Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Supdt. Ce Mor Ii ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)LC181(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is a sugar mill. The controversy in this writ petition pertains to the amount of rebate in excise duty which the petitioner is entitled to in terms of the notification GSR No. 146/74-CE/F. No. 14/22/74/CX-1, dated 12.10.1974.2. Evidently with a view to encourage the production of sugar, the Central Government had issued the said exemption notification under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The notification deals with the production in the sugar year 1974-75 only. At any rate Clauses (1) and (2) mentioned in the table contained in the said notification deal only with the sugar year 1974-75. (Sugar year, we are told, commences from 1st October and ends with 30th September of the following year). Clauses (1) and (2) provide for two distinct situations. Clause (1) deals with the period 1st October 1974 to 30lh November 1974, whereas Clause (2) deals with the period commencing on 1st December 1974 and ending with 30th September 1975. The petiti...
Rajeshwar Dayal Sharma Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1412
ORDERR.R.K. Trivedi, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th June, 1990 by which fire-arm licence No. 689189, P.S. Khurja Nagar, district Bulandshahar has been cancelled by respondent No. 1 District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. The aforesaid order of respondent No. 1 has been passed on the basis of the order dated 30th April, 1990 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 19th July, 1990 in Court and this Court on same day granted three weeks time to learned Standing counsel to file a counter affidavit. One week's time thereafter was granted to the petitioner for filing a rejoinder affidavit. This writ petition was directed to be listed on 30th August, 1990 and in the order it was specifically made clear that the writ petition shall be finally disposed of on the date of next listing. However in spite of this clear direction no counter affidavit has been filed.2. I have beared learned...
Hindustan Paper and Straw Board Mills Vs. Asstt. Collector, C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC103; 1991LC185(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT462(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, Mr. A.K. Gupta.2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16/17-7-1980 and the order dated 15-7-1980.3. The petitioner says that it is a Small Scale Industry. It was granted licence in 1964. It is engaged in manufacture of Mill Board/Straw Board etc. A certificate of exemption dated 29-7-1964 was granted by the Central Excise Collector, Kanpur to the petitioner. It exempted the petitioner 'from payment of duty on the 125 M.T. of Straw Board or Pulp Board including Grey Board in a financial year.' The petitioner says that he was availing of the said exemption and not paying any duty. While so, he was served with a notice of demand in Form D.D. 2 dated 26-7-1969/19-8-1969 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,765/- towards the duty on Pulp Board manufactured by him. The petitioner says that he made a representation against the said demand but to no av...
Laksmi Devi Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cce and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)LC183(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT500(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This petition is filed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from enforcing the notice of demand, dated 27th May 1981, issued by Superintendent, Central Excise, Gorakhpur and for other allied reliefs.2. The main dispute in this writ petition pertains to the eligibility of the petitioner for Central Excise rebate for the sugar year 1972-73 and 1973-74. According to law, then in force, the petitioner was entitled to Central Excise rebate if he produced more sugar during the particular sugar year than he produced during the base year-which in this case, happens to be 1971-72 and 1972-73 respectively.3. For a certain period during the base year the factory did not work and no sugar was produced. Now the authorities are saying that for the period the factory did not work during the base year, the production during the corresponding period in mis sugar-year will not be taken into account and on this basis the rebate has...