Allahabad Court May 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. Metal Goods Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR230(All); [1992]60TAXMAN120(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting AssistantCommissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty on the date on which it was passed 'The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by his order dated February 15, 1977, imposed a penalty of Rs. 99,100 under Section 271(1)(c) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the assessee's alleged default of concealment. The validity of this order was challenged by the assessee, inter alia, on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the impugned penalty after April 1, 1976, with effect from which date the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stood deleted by Secti...
Petro Fine Chemicals Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC339; 1991LC330(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT488(All)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner obtained a licence in form L-6 under Rules 174 and 192 of the Central Excise Rules authorising them to obtain without payment of the whole or part of the duty leviable on Toluene, Benzene, Toluol and Xylene to be used by it in the manufacture of Rubber Solutions and Thinner during the five years ending on 31st December 1991. This licence was suspended by the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range II, Agra, vide his order dated 12th February, 1988. The order reads as follows:'Central Excise Range II, Agra. C.No. 26/Petrofine/87/180 To, M/s. Petrofine Chemicals507-B Jalesar Road,Agra. Sir, Sub:- Misuse of concession granted under Chapter X C/Regd. On the basis of enquiries made, it has been revealed that you have misused the concession granted to you under Chapter X and the Asstt. Collector C. Excise, Agra has withdrawn his satisfaction for granting permission for issue of L-6 licence, with the direction that I should initiate pro...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Jamuna Devi.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(All)95
R. K. GULATI, J. :This is a reference under s. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the CWT, Allahabad. The following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the IAC had no jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957 on or after 1st April, 1976, i.e., the date from which his power to impose the penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957 was taken away by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 ?'2. This reference related to the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75. Simultaneously with the completion of assessments the WTO initiated proceedings under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act. He referred the matters to the IAC under s. 18(3) as it stood at the relevant time. The assessee was subjected to penalty of varying amounts from all these years by the IAC by his three separate orders passed under ...
M/S. International Data Management Ltd. and Others Vs. State of U.P. a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All369
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ.1. This writ petition calls in question the validity of a letter dated 30th November, 1990 written by the Secretary to Government of U.P. addressed to heads of Government departments, public corporations and other local bodies. Through this letter, the Secretary to Government conveyed the decision of the Government that all the departments of the Government, public corporations and other local authorities in the State should obtain the electronic goods specified in the letter from M/s. Uptron (India) Ltd., alone. M/s. Uptron (India) Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act owned and controlled by the Government of U.P. and engaged in the manufacture of electronic goods. The first petitioner M/s. International Data Management Ltd. is a public limited company having its registered office at New Delhi and engaged inter alia in manufacture and sate of electro-nic goods mentioned in the impugned letter. The petitioners challenge the validity of the ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Irshad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR144(All)
K.P. Singh, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, on the direction of this court in terms of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has drawn up the statement of facts and has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in placing the burden of proof on the Department in a case covered by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 19,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year under our consideration is 1967-68. The Income-tax Officer by his judgment dated January 2, 1970, did not believe the stand of the assessee that he had spent the money ou...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Janki Kishori Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(All)18; [1991]192ITR229(All); [1991]59TAXMAN206(All)
S.R. Singh, J. 1. Pursuant to a direction by this court in Miscellaneous Wealth-tax Applications Nos. 1338, 1339, 1340 and 1341 of 1977 by means of the order dated January 16, 1978, the Appellate Tribunal (Income-tax) Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has stated the case on the following question under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Zamindari Abolition and Relief and Rehabilitation Bonds issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh were covered by the term 'security' mentioned in section 5(1)(xxii) of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The assessee, Smt. Janki Kishori Devi, is an individual. Her total wealth consists of both movable and immovable properties. She also holdsU. P. Zamindari Abolition Compensation Bonds and U. P. Zamindari Abolition Rehabilitation Grant Bonds (hereinafter referred to as the 'Compensation Bonds' and 'Rehabilitat...
Mahesh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ779
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner who has been detained under 3(iii) of the National Security Act by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, has assailed his detention order.2. In the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner it was alleged that on 7-7-90 one Arun Kumar, son of Sri Dhara Singh, resident of L-36, Sanjai Nagar, Sector 23, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, lodged a F.I.R. at police station Kavri Nagar to the effect that his son Yatin Kumar went to attend his classes in the school at 7.30 a.m. but 7-7-90 being Saturday the school was closed earlier than 1.30 p.m. which was the usual time for closure of the school but Yatindra Kumar did not return to his house. The report was lodged at 14.15 hours and the case was registered and investigation commenced. On 10-7-90 the said Arun Kumar visited the police station and filed a letter alleged to have been written by the accused in which it was stated that Yatindra Kumar was in his custody and would be release...
Kanthal India Limited Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, Range Ii and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(40)LC446(Allahabad)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the show-cause notice dated 21st May 1983, issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range II, Varanasi to the petitioners. Under this notice the petitioner is called upon to show cause as to why he should not be required to pay an amount of Rs. 20,88,111.02 towards the duty short-paid. The period for which this duty is demanded is December 1978 to 31st March 1983. The reasons, for which the show-cause notice is given, are mentioned 1 in annexure-A to the show cause notice. Annexure-A recites:During the period from Dec. 1978 to March 1983 they knowingly and deliberately suppressed the material facts for the correct classification of their and product 'Electrical Resistance wires' under tariff item No. 33(B)(ii) and continued to pay duty on their product wrongly under tariff item No. 26-AA at the much lower rate than the rate; actually they required to pay duty under tariff item No. 33(B)(ii); consequently they ha...
Shamli Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1991
Reported in: 1993(48)LC560(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner is a paper Mill. It had applied to the Director General, Technical Development, New Delhi for registering itself with him. In the application, it indicated its installed capacity as 2800 M. Tonnes per annum. Petitioner says that on account of non-availability of machinery, it installed the machinery of 1600 M. Tonnes per annum only. It commenced production of Kraft paper in the year 1981 and in that connection, it submitted a classification list as well as a price list for approval of the appropriate Central Excise Officer.2. In the classification list submitted by the petitioner, it took its actual installed capacity as the basis and claimed the benefit of Exemption notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. According to the said notification, it appears, if installed capacity is less than 2000 M. Tonnes per annum, the manufacturer would be entitled to rebate in excise duly to an extent of 75% but if...
Governing Council of Kayastha Pathshala, Prayag and Others Vs. Ram Cha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1992All158
ORDERMithal, J.1. The instant First Appeal from Order is directed against an order dated 9-1-1991 passed by the trial court directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the appropriate court.2. It will perhaps be best, in view of the question at issue, to relate what it is that the dispute was all about, A suit purporting to be one under S. 92 of the C.P.C. was instituted in the court of Civil Judge and without first obtaining necessary permission of the Advocate General or leave of the Court. Later, realising that such a suit can only be filed in the court of the District Judge, an application was moved on 17-2-1990 praying for return of the plaint for being presented in the proper Court as it had been filed in the wrong court, the Court allowed the application despite appellants objection against return of the plaint on the plea that the plaint deserved to be rejected and, therefore, cannot be ordered to be returned for presentation to another Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »