Allahabad Court April 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.
Dr. Faizullah Peer and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All309; (1991)1UPLBEC595
ORDER1. In this petition counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Shri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri J. N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have agreed that this petition may be heard and finally disposed of at this stage.2. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the list of selected candidates for admission to doctoral degree programme in Indian veterinary Research Institute Izat-nagar, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as I.V.R.I.) for the year 1990-91.3. Necessary facts giving rise to this dispute are that in the months of May-June, 1990, respondent No. 3 published an advertisement inviting applications for admission to Master and Doctoral Degree Programme for which a competitive written examination was to be held on 28-7-1990. The advertisement has been filed as Annexure I to this petition. In this advertisement, total 18 disciplines have been mentioned for doctoral degree ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR647(All)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Revenue and pertains to the assessment year 1984-85.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied that the following two questions are statable questions of law and do arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct to vacate the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in following its earlier order holding that there were no material before the Commissioner of Income-tax to justify his finding that the assessment made under Section 143(1) was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?' 3. Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delh...
Jawahar Lal Goyal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR419(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following two questions of law do arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :' 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that Shri Mukesh Kumar was a benamidar of Jawahar Lal Goyal and not a co-sharer of land and building in terms of the unregistered agreement and statement on oath of Shri Mukesh Kumar? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the investment of Rs. 20,000 in land and building made by Shri Mukesh Kumar as loan to the appellant and further rejecting the investment of Rs. 24,840, thereby confirming it as undisclosed income of the appellant, ignoring the agreement to purchase land ?' 2. The other questions proposed in this application, in our opinion, are covered by the above questions and represent only different aspects of the above questions. In the circumsta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Cotton Spinning Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR773(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This is an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur. The question proposed in the application reads as under :'Whether in law and on the facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision holding that the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing artificial silk and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. as against 10 per cent. allowed by the Assessing Officer ?'2. The assessee-company claimed depreciation on artificial silk manufacturing machinery at the rate of 15 per cent. which was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. He, however, allowed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent. only. In appeal, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee before the appellate ...
Niraj Kumar Vijai Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR811(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This is an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Four questions have been proposed in the application which are stated to be questions of law in respect of which a mandamus is sought for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the said questions for the opinion of this court.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The dispute arises from the proceedings under Section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) by his order dated March 12, 1987, refused to grant registration to the assessee-firm on the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence as some of its partners were only name-lenders.3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not agree with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment). He recorded a finding that the partnership in respect of which registration was sought satisfied all the requirements of the Partnership...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhuwaneshwar Singh and Raja Ram Jaiswal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR403(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after April 1, 1976 ?'2. The controversy involved in the aforesaid question is where the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Officer for the concealment of income under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the enforcement of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which came into effect from April 1, 1976, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied penalty on a reference being made to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 274, after April, 1, 1976, i.e., after the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 274, whether such a penalty order could...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Syntex Fabrics Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR29(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing artificial silk and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15% as against 10% ?' 2. We do not consider it necessary to set out the facts which have a bearing on these questions, inasmuch as learned counsel for both the sides agree that a similar controversy as is involved in the questions now referred to us had come up for consideration before this court between the same parties in Addl CIT v. Syntex Fabrics Ltd. 0065/1990 :...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Shanker Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR487(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it is not a case of 'reconstruction' of a business already in existence and that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question are these. According to the Revenue, the assessee had purchased a cold storage plant on February 1, 1970, consisting of assets valued at Rs. 1,44,647, which included land, building and machinery. The assessee demolished a part of the cold storage structure and reconstructed the cold storage plant. The construction was completed in March, 1971, and the total investment in the new structure was to the tune of Rs. 2,88,837. The assessee made a claim for allowance under S...
Rajpal Son of Tarif Singh and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2574
1. Raj Pal, Ali Mohammad, Sri Ram and Sahabu alias Shahabuddin appellants have filed this appeal against their conviction Under Section 396, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on 19-1-1979 in Sessions Trial No. 365 of 1975.2. The charge against the appellants was that they along with several other accused committed a dacoity in the night of 13/14-5-1976 at the house of Surendra Kumar in village Bhandoli, Police Station Kotwali, district Bulandshahr and during the course of which they committed the murder of Km. Archana and Anil Kumar, sister and borther of Surendra Kumar.3. Sri Keshav Sahai and Sri S.P. S. Raghav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. have been heard at length and the entire record has been perused.4. According to the prosecution case PW/1 Surendra Kumar was sleeping in a room inside the hall of his Bungalow. P.W. 2 Madan Lal, his son Anil ...
Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR147(All)
1. The petitioner, Jawahar Lal Gupta, has sought to challenge the validity of reassessment proceedings taken in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, a copy of which is annexure I to the writ petition. By the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1989-90 was reopened. The challenge to the aforesaid notice is based on the allegation that, despite the petitioner's demand in writing for supply of a copy of the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of which the reassessment was reopened, he has not been apprised of the reasons nor has he been furnished with a copy thereof. According to the petitioner, in the initial return filed by him for the assessment year in question, he had disclosed all the material facts and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act are illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the reassessment proceedings do not conform to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »