Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)104CTR(All)282; [1993]200ITR461(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to frame two separate assessments for the periods April 1, 1977, to October 10, 1977 and October 12, 1977, to March 31, 1978?'2. The assessee is a firm. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1978-79 with the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1978. At the inception of the previous year to the assessment year in question, the firm consisted of two partners, viz., Ram Bilas and Prem Kumar. In the midst of the relevant previous year, i.e., October 9, 1977, one out of the two partners died. Three days thereafter, on October 12, 1977, the lone surviving partner joined hands with o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1992(65)FLR497]; (1993)IIILLJ857All
N.L. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.1991 passed in the Civil Revision No. 3 of 1990 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as a salesman in Chhetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Ruheri, Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) on temporary basis. It is stated that he committed embezzlement and was negligent in performance of his duties. He used to absent himself from duties. Therefore, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent. The respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Prescribed Authority/Astt. Labour Commissioner under the Act, district Aligarh, claiming wages due from the petitioners. The petitioners filed a written statement and contested the case under Section 15 of the Act, on the ground that claim of respondent No. 3 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All136; (1992)1UPLBEC642
ORDER1.The petitioner is a student of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. He gave his B.A. III year Examination, 1991 in respect of which he received a charge sheet on 31-7-91 alleging use of unfair means. True copy of the charge sheet is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said charge sheet shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had inserted pre-written sheets inside the title covers of the copies in two papers. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges. True copy of the reply is Annexure '2' to the writ petition. Subsequently an order dated 26-10-91 (Annexure 3 to thepetition) has been communicated to the petitioner in which it is stated that the petitioner's B.A. III year result for 1990-91 is cancelled and he is debarred from appearing at the examination up to 1993. The petitioner has challenged the said order by means of the present writ petition.2. Counter Affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. I have heard Shri Shyam Na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1992)108CTR(All)105
R. K. GULATI, J. :These applications under s. 256(2) of the IT Act have been filed by the CIT, Allahabad which pertain to asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86. In all these applications a common question has been proposed which reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) holding that income from sarrafa and sonari business belongs to M/s. Ram Sewak Bal AOP when no evidence was found during the course of search operation to substantiate it ?'2. The short controversy before the Tribunal was whether or not business in sarrafa and sonari carried on under the name and style of Ram Sewak Pyare Lal was that of the assessee assessed in the status of Association of Persons (AOP). The ITO was of the view that the said business belonged to one Ram Sewak Prasad as his individual business and the substantive assessment in respect of the income from that business was to be made in his hand. However, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3558
ORDERPalok Basu, J.1. Aggrieved by an order of VI Addl. Sessions Judge dt. 4-2-1991 in Special Trial No. 1 of 1986 thereby refusing to commence de novo trial of the accused opposite party the State of U.P. have preferred the instant revision.2. The accused-opposite party V. K. Srivastava was posted as Sales-tax Officer in Varanasi and on a particular date he is alleged to have taken a bribe of Rs. 500/- when a trap was laid. On completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed under Section 161, IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial commenced and several witnesses were examined by the prosecution in the court of VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi and the trial was numbered as Special trial No. 1 of 1986. A fire broke out in the precincts of the Civil Courts in Varanasi in Dec. 1988 which destroyed many judicial files. It is said that a file of the said trial was also damaged to some extent in the said fire but was retrieved after some time. On noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1993)109CTR(All)503
ORDERBY THE COURT :This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act filed at the instance of the Revenue in which the following two questions have been raised :'1. Whether, on the facts and legal position of the case, the Honble Tribunal was justified in holding that the cash payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 44,000 were not disallowable under s. 40A(3).2. Whether, in view of ratio of the decision of Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.M.A.K. Mohideen Thamby & Co. vs . CIT : [1959]36ITR481(AP) Honble Tribunals decision in the case of Dhorajia Construction Co. vs. ITO (1991) 92 CTR 510 and Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs . Kapur Bros. : [1979]118ITR741(All) , the Honble Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,000 made in the hands of the firm under s. 68 of IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The applicant has sought direction to the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this Court.3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1993All171
ORDERH.N. Tilhari, J. 1. This petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. Shaibya Shukla alleging to be in public interest keeping in view the provisions of Art. 51A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has by this writ petition sought for the following relief:--the writ, order or direction in the nature of writ certierari quashing the tender notice dated 2-6-90, contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition as well as for quashing of annexure-2, 4 and 5 to the writ petition dated 9-1-91, 15-1-91 and 8-2-91 respectively. The petitioner has further sought writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite-parties 1 to 3 not to sell chemically treated Soyabean seed as per notice dated 2-6-90 (annexure-1). The petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the opposite-party No. 5 not to buy 6339.65 quintals of chemically treated Soyabean seed and for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper.2. The brief facts of the case are that opposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1993]200ITR137(All)
R. K. GULATI J. - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is concluded by the findings of fact. To the income returned by the assessee, two additions, amongst others, were made, one on account of the value of suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 10,96.605 and the other for difference in stock as per books and that pledged with the bank for which an addition of Rs. 21,260 was made.The Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, Meerut, deleted both the additions. That order was confirmed in second appeal at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found as a fact that production of line, disclosed by the assessee, from the lime stone was not law which was 50 per cent. Another finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that the Income-tax Officer had proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 10,06,605 on an erron...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1992(43)LC707(Allahabad)
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. The petitioner objects, through this petition, to the disallowance of benefit of utilisation of money credit available under Notification No. 46/89, dated 11.10.1989 as amended by Notification No. 26/91, dated 25.7.1991, issued under Rule 57-K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), in respect of vegetable oils used as input by the petitioners in manufacture of soap noodles. A copy of the order dated 31.10.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, disallowing the utilisation of money credit has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.2. The petitioners' factory is situate in district Unnao which manufactures soap noodles. Soap noodles is a final product of the petitioners' factory. To establish the above facts the petitioners filed the classification list duly approved by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur. It is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, showing the full description of the item produc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All358
ORDER1. This is an applicationunder O. 6, R. 16, O.7, R. 11 and S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) and under S. 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (briefly, the Act 1951) to dismiss the election petition of the petitioner and to strike out numerous paragraphs in the petition under O.6, R. 16, C.P.C. read with O.7, R. 11 and S. 151, C.P.C. Though the application contains several averments but urges Sri A. Kumar counsel for the respondent, the election petition be dismissed on the ground that it has not been signed and verified by the petitioner in the manner laid down under the C.P.C. and in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1951. These averments have been made in paragraphs Nos. 10 and 11 of the affidavit accompanying the application. Precisely the submission of Sri Kumar is that schedules 1 to 6 have been attached to the election petition, but none of them has been verified. To elaborate his argument, Sri Kumar urges that sub-sec. (2) of S. 83 of the Act,...
Tag this Judgment!