Allahabad Court March 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. Mahabir Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR130(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 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the extra amount of Rs. 2,62,651 realised on enhanced price of sugar had not accrued in the assessment year 1973-74 and, as such, did not form part of the income of the assessee for that year ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had kept an amount of Rs. 2,62,659 in a suspense account in the name of the District Magistrate in the State Bank of India in pursuance of the orders of this court in a writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the assessee questioning the levy price fixed by the Government. It wanted a higher price. The assessee was allowed to collect the higher price but subject to the condition that he should deposit the difference betwee...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR157(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property which was inherited by the assessee from his father in terms of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was his individual property and not of his joint Hindu family ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Hindu law in regard to the nature and character of ancestral property, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property in question became the individual property of Shri Ramesh Chandra, simply because the property was inherited by him according to the rules of Hindu Succession Act ?'2. The assessee's father, Sri Surendra Nath Dhaul, was a partner in a firm, Messrs. Bebru Brushware. He was a partner in that firm in his individual capacity. After his death, the said...
Senser Pal Singh Vs. Mahmood and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3157
ORDERK.K. Birla, J.1. The dispute relates to the custody of tractor No. USC 8241 (hereinafter referred to as Tractor). Shri Shiv Charan Singh, father of Senser Pal Singh, the present revisionist, was registered owner of this tractor who died on 6-10-1982. According to the revisionist, by the family settlement he became the exclusive owner of the tractor. Accoridng to Sri Mahmood opposite party No. 1, this tractor was sold by Senser Pal Singh to Shahabuddin, opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 32500/- and Mahmood purchased the tractor from Shabuddin on 25-7-1990 for Rs. 63,000/-. These sales are denied by the present revisionist Sri Senser Pal Singh. The further facts leading to this revision may be narrated in brief. On 9-8-1990 police of P.S. Kanker khera (Meerut) made a report under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. (Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit) against Mahmood and 26 others. The other parties are Hasmat and others. According to this report Mahmood sold some land to Hasmat and received sale...
Bhanu Pratap Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1639
ORDERJ.K. Mathur, J.1. This is second bail application moved on behalf of Bhanu Pratap who is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act.2. Brief facts of this case are that S.I. Chhedi Prasad Upadhyaya along with constables was on duty when he came to know that the accused had smack at his residence. He went there and concealed himself while constable Mohammad Firoz called the accused and told him that he was a student and asked him to give smack. The accused gave 5 gm. smack to him and demanded Rs. 400/- as its price. Constable Mohammad Firoz then introduced himself. When the accused tried to run away, he was apprehended by the Sub-Inspector and the constables.3. The earlier bail application moved by him was rejected by this court on 17-1-91. The present bail application has been moved again. This application has been pressed firstly on the ground that the version of the incident as given by the prosecution is improbable. Secondly that the recover...
U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT14(All)
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner, U.P State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was Constituted in 1959 under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Board had established Electricity Fabrication unit with its headquarters at Naini (Allahabad) in 1975 for fabrication and galvanizing mild steel (i.e. angle iron etc.) required for erection of towers and transmission lines etc. The Central Excise and Customs authorities required the Board to pay excise duty on goods manufactured in its fabrication unit. The Board protested and made representations in connection therewith; but its plea was rejected by the Department by its order dated 5-9-1983. Officials of the Department of Central Excise had also seized fabricated steel, iron etc. Hence this petition.2. Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Depa...
Parasrampuria Trading and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central E ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(91)LC171(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Certain quantity of cigarettes, which the petitioner claims as belonging to him, were seized while they were being unloaded, from van No. U.A.N. 8728 at Kanpur. The seizure was on 16.12.1990 vide Panchnama/Recovery Memo of the said date. It says that the cigarettes and the Matador Van were seized for breach of provisions of the Central Excise law and Rules framed thereunder.2. The petitioner's case no doubt is that he is not guilty of any violation. He has put forward certain explanation about the correctness of which, we cannot express any opinion. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has relied on Rule 206(3) of the Central Excise Rules. Indeed, he says that the petitioner has filed an application on 27.2.1991 for release of the goods under Rule 206(3). We cannot, however, say that the authority, before whom the said application has been filed is guilty of unreasonable delay in disposing of the said application. The application was filed hardly about twelve...
ElgIn Mills Company Limited Vs. Collector, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)LC172(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that even though on an earlier occasion, this Court passed an order, on 21.6.1989, Civil Misc. Writ No. Nil of 1989 Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. Mill No. 1 Kanpur through its Secretary v. The Collector Central Excise Kanpur to the effect that the copies of the reports of Chemical Examiner and Textile Technocrat shall be furnished to the petitioner before proceeding further, it is not being complied with by the Respondents. The order dated 21.6.1989 reads as under:Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that the petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.The grievances of the petitioner is that without supplying the copies of the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Textile Technocrat, the Collector is proceeding with the case.I direct that further proceedings in case No. V(15) off/Section 3 MPI ADJ. 16/88 shall remain stayed till t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Pat Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR75(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the valuation of shares of Messrs. J. K. Commercial Corporation and Messrs. J. K. Udyog Ltd., at Rs. 69.17 and Rs. 14. 74 per share, respectively, as shown by the assessee ?'2. The assessment year concerned herein is 1969-70. In the return regarding this assessment year, the assessee declared capital gains of Rs. 14,621. This gain had resulted from the transfer of 1,440 shares of Messrs. J. K. Commercial Corporation and 100 shares of Messrs. J. K. Udyog Ltd. by the assessee to certain other persons. The assessee stated that these shares were transferred at the rate of Rs. 69.17 and Rs. 14.74 per share, respectively. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that since the vendors are directly and indirectly connected with the assessee and also because the market value of th...
Gopal Krishna Singhania (individual) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR65(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 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the applicant's case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the enhancement of perquisite for the use of residential accommodation in the assessee's case ?'2. The assessee is an individual. His income comprised income from salary and share of profit in a firm, Messrs. Plywood Products, dividend income, interest income, etc. He was a director of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. The said company has provided him free furnished accommodation situate at 59-A Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay, with an area of 3, 227 sq. ft. The Income-tax Officer valued the said perquisite under rule 3(1)(ii) at Rs. 17,574 and added the same to the income of the assessee. This addition was questioned by the assessee, unsuccessfully before both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. We are unable to see any questio...
Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2881
A.P. Misra, J.1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 1990 detaining the petitioner and for quashing the same. The petitioner has further sought for a direction for releasing him forthwith from the detention.2. The incident is said to have taken place on 15-3-1990 when according to the respondents the petitioner was intercepted by the G.R.P. Mughal Sarai and from his possession six gold biscuits were recovered. Since this case relates to the Customs Department, it was transferred along with the recovered articles to the officials of the Customs Department on the same day. On 16-3-1990 the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and after obtaining proper remand order, he was sent to Jail. Petitioner's statement was also recorded both on 15-3-1990 and 16-3-1990 and as per his statement it is revealed that the recovered gold belonged to Ratan Kumar Agarwal of Allahabad. On 18-4-1990 the statement of Ratan Kumar Agarwal was r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »