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. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR600(All)
Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two identical questions are referred in I. T. R. No. 165 of 1979 and I. T. R. No. 194 of 1979. They read as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the income from sale of forms and other miscellaneous receipts was not taxable under section 10(23A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was material on record justifying the Tribunals finding in allowing expenses at the rate of 25% of the interest income which is being brought to tax in view of the provisions contained in sections 10 and 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'In I. T. R. No. 198 of 1979, the following five questions are referred under the same provision :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the income from (1) sale of forms, (ii) sale of rules, (iii) examinations, (iv) miscella...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR575(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions :'(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. 2,07,943 realised as enhanced price as a result of the High Courts decision had not accrued in the year and did not form part of the income of the year and, as such, was liable to be deleted from the total income ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the disallowance of interest by Rs. 23,733 ?'So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is stated fairly by Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned standing counsel for the Revenue that this question is covered by the decision of this court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]188ITR787(All) . Though it is stated that the Revenue has not accepted the said judgment and is approaching the Supreme Court, the can...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Agya Shyam Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR470(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following two questions :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified and had material for holding that the assessee's case was covered by the provisions of Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal's decision was vitiated in law having ignored the material fact that the assessee had no bank account and had made purchases to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs from Messrs. Shyam Fabrics but the cash payments towards the said purchases which attracted Section 40A(3) were only to the extent of Rs. 47,000 and odd ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of powerloom cloth. In the assessment relating to assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer added an amount of Rs. 56,066 in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act. This amount comprised three payments made to three parties. All the th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Porwal and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR681(All)
1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following three questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the firmgot automatically dissolved on the death of Shri Phool Chandra, partner, and, thereafter, the business was carried on by a new firm consisting of the remaining three partners ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not accepting the contention of the Department that it was a case of a mere change in constitution of the firm within the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the Income-tax Officer was justified in making one single assessment after clubbing the income of both the periods ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that two separate asse...
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Employees' Association Vs. D.C. Nautiyal, Ma ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ52All
S.C. Mathur, J.1. The applicant alleges disobedience by Sri D.C. Nautiyal, Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow.According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant had raised labour dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court upheld the claim of the workmen and directed that the workmen shall be treated as confirmed. The award of the Labour Court was published on 5th April, 1986. The employer, namely, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. challenged the award through Writ Petition No. 4231 of 1986 which was dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 10th April, 1990. The submission of learned counsel is that the award of the Labour Court has merged in the judgment of this Court and, therefore, the opposite Party has committed contempt of this Court by not implementing the award. The principle of merger applies to appeals. It does not apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It cannot, therefo...
Ram Raj Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2462
Palok Basu, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the accused Ram Raj Singh, Zaki-ullah, Rahmat, Vijai Bahadur, Uma (since dead), Shyam Narain, Shyam Ji and Ram Dhani against the judgment and order dated 23-12-1982 convicting them Under Section 302, IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur.2. The appellants were charged Under Section 302, IPC for having committed the murder of Brahma Singh in the night of 26/27-6-1976, at about 12.00 in the night, in villages Saraiya, P. S. Belipur, district Gorakhpur.3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perusing the record of the case on 6-3-1991, the appeal was allowed. We now proceed to give the reasons therefor.4. The prosecution case is that accused Ram Raj Singh, who is the real brother of the deceased Brahma Singh, was employed in the Military and was away from his home for quite sometime. During his absence, ...
Nizam Wool Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR318(All); [1992]59TAXMAN187(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - In this application filed by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law are sought to be raised :'(1) Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the applicant has singularly failed to establish the genuineness of the identity of Indian Wool Traders is wholly unsustainable in law, as the said finding is perverse and unreasonable, being contrary relevant material available on record, namely, the settlement application filed by one Shri Suresh Kumar before the Income-tax Settlement Commission, and also, the certificate from the New Bank of India, Rani Bagh Branch, New Delhi confirming that a draft issued by the applicant had been credited to a bank account standing in the name of Indian Wool Traders ?(2) Whether, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that Indian Wool Traders was a 'facade' is likewise wholly unsustainable in law, being unreasonable and perverse, and contrary to the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tika Ram and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR120(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J., - 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, in law of the Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the principle of law laid down by the Supreme court in CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) still hold the field ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty of Rs. 75,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'So far as question No. 1 is concerned, we are unable to find any express statement in order of the Tribunal to the effect that, even after the introduction of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) continues to be good law.It is no doubt true that the Tribunal applied the principle of Anwar Alis case : [1970]76IT...
1. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lohia Machines Pvt. Ltd. (itr No. 16 ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR249(All)
Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that loans taken should not be excluded from the assessees capital for working out deduction under section 80J ?'The assessee here is M/s. Lohia Machines Pvt. Ltd. In the case of this very assessee, the Supreme Court, in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. CIT : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , held that borrowed capital cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be included in the assessees capital for working out the deduction provided under section 80J of the Income-tax Act. Following that decision, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pehlaj Rai Daryanmal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR242(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 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the words 'cultivator, grower or producer' occurring at the end of Rule 6DD(f) qualify the products of horticulture or agriculture only and they do not qualify the other clauses mentioned in the said rule ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in timber. While scrutinising the accounts for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee has made payments for purchase of timber to the extent of Rs. 28,565 to various parties in cash exceeding Rs. 2,500. The assessee admitted that these payments were made at Kanpur. The Income-tax Officer felt a doubt about the identity of the recipients of the said amount. Accordingly, he disallowed the deductions and added back the said amount to the assessee's income. On...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »