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.
Raghupati Singhania (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR384(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Undcr Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal lias stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there were variations in the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Hindu undivided family and the individual regarding the claim of exemption under Section 80K in respect of the dividend from J. K. Synthetics Ltd. ?'2. An assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment year concerned is 3973-74. The assessee holds certain shares in a company, viz., J.K. Synthetics Ltd. It has been deriving dividend income therefrom. In its return, the assessee claimed certain amount by way of deduction under Section 80K of the Income tax Act. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee had not filed the relevant certificate. On appeal, this order was affirmed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that, in the absence of a certificate, it was not possible for the Income-tax Off...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Allahabad Milling Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR325(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two identical questions are stated in these three references. The questions are as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the lease agreement and the memorandum of association of the assessee-company, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the income earned by the assessee from leasing out of the cold storage and ice plant to M/s. Rajendra Prasad Kishanlal, should he assessed as profits and gain of business and not under the head 'Other sources ?' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the income from leasing out of the cold storage and ice plant should be assessed as profits and gains of business in spite of the fact that such income was assessed under the head 'Other sources' till the assessment year 1959-60 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.P. Kanodia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR557(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1061, the Tribunal has stated the following question at the instance of Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that what was the individual property of the respondents to begin with has been converted by them into that of their smaller Hindu undivided family's by their declaration made in the income-tax and wealth-tax returns filed for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1970-71 and accepted by the Revenue ?'2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred another question which reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had become a partner in the partnership firm evidenced by the partnership deed dated December 30, 1956, in their individual capacity and not representing their smaller-HUFs ?'3. Lala Ganga Prasad Kanodia, Brij Moha...
Cawnpore Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(All)199; [1992]195ITR620(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee under both the Income-tax Act and Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964. The assessment year concerned herein is 1978-79. The controversy at present is confined to the interest payable on the refund of surtax. According to the petitioner, he paid certain amount by way of surtax under a provisional assessment order in respect of the said assessment year. He says that, subsequently, a regular assessment was also made under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964. He says further that, in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the surtax became refundable to him and it was also refunded. The only controversy now relates to the interest payable on the amount of surtax refunded to the petitioner. 2. Learned additional standing counsel for the Revenue says that no final assessment order has been made with respect to the said assessment year under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act. He, therefore, says that no question of refund can ar...
Kishan Pal and anr. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2268
ORDERN.L. Ganguly, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 228 of 1983, the prosecution evidence was closed. After closing of the prosecution evidence before statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was recorded and an application was filed by the prosecution for permission to file a number of documents in the case. The application of the prosecution for filing of the documents was opposed by the accused persons on the ground that the trial is of 1983 and after a lapse of about 8 years. The prosecution is now proposing to file certain documentary evidence in the case, which will, in other words, reopen the prosecution case and the accused shall be highly prejudiced in their defence. The counsel for the State appears to have cited 1952 All LJ 668 : (1953 Cri LJ 546): Munshi Singh v. State, learned single Judge of this Court in the said judgment observed that the proceedings in the criminal trials are not like the proceedings in the civil court. There is no fixed stage at which the docu...
Leela Dhar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2857
ORDERN.L. Ganguly, J.1. This application Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in a Criminal Case No. 1190 of 1990 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur which was initiated on the complaint filed by the complainant/opposite party. The first submission in the case is that all the witnesses named in the complaint were not examined by the learned Magistrate before issuing summons to the accused persons, as required under the provisions of Section 202, Cr. P.C. which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case admittedly is Under Sections 302/147/148/149, IPC. Along with the complaint, a list of witnesses of nine persons have been mentioned. Out of those, nine witnesses, six witnesses have been examined by the court below. Three witnesses, namely Lallu s/o Tahlu Mumhar, Mishiria s/o Dharam Das Chamar and Moniya s/ o Tahlu Chamar were not examined. The argument of the learned counsel is that the complainant has not submitted any written...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›