Allahabad Court August 1992 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. U.P. Laminators (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(All)5; [1993]201ITR984(All); [1992]65TAXMAN526(All)
Om Parkash, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the true interpretation of Section 79, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the provisions of Section 79 are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as no finding has been given in this case that the change in the shareholdings was effected with a view to avoiding or reducing any liability to tax ?'2. The assessee-company is a private limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. Its accounting period for the assessment year 1975-76 under consideration is the calendar year 1974. It claimed during the accounting period under consideration that unabsorbed depreciation and the trading loss of the assessment year 1973-74, the accounting period for which was the calendar year 1972, be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR258(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1068-69 to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 2,26,970 in computing its income for the assessment year 1968-69 being the amount determined to be payable as additional sugarcane price?'2. Whether a sum of Rs. 2,05,787 representing the sugarcane price is deductible from the computation of the assessor's income of the previous year was referred to this court in CIT v. Janki Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. : [1972]84ITR348(All) and then this court held that a dearly ascertained liability arose during the previous year and that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of that liability against the profit earned by the assessee during the previous year.3. Following the aforesaid authority, we answer the abov...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR206(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 29,673 which was credited to the Amanat Khata by the assessee, rejecting the plea of the assessee that the said amount was held thereby as a trustee. Also penalty to the extent of Rs. 5,000 was levied treating that amount as concealed income, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-lax Act, 1961. From the order of the Appellate Tribunal, it is amply clear that addition of Rs. 29,673 has been deleted. No information has been furnished to us by standing counsel whether the Revenue has gone in reference in the quantum matter and, therefore, the addition of Rs. 29,673 having been deleted, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive...
Hemendra Chaudhury Vs. M/S. Punjab National Bank and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All49
ORDER1. By this revision, the defendant revisionist has challenged the order dated 16-6-92 passed by Civil Judge, Nainital allowing the application of plaintiff-opposite party for admitting in evidence documents filed by him at a late stage of the suit, when even arguments were over in the case.2. This revision is not maintainable. Norevision lies against an order allowing application for producing documentary evidence which was not filed at appropriate stage in accordance with Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C. It is not a 'case which has been decided' for the purpose of Section 115, C.P.C. This view of mine is supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Kailash Singh v. M/s. Agarwal Export Corporation, 1984 ALJ 30.3. 1 am also of the opinion that analogy of cases in respect of adducing of additional evidence in appeal under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. can be extended to the cases where the trial Court allows production of documentary evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. Under both t...
U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ468All; (1993)1UPLBEC183
Palok Basu, J.1. Since the petitions raise similar questions they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. In one of them, Rajiv Ratan Lal Srivastava is the respondent No. 3 who has been dismissed from the office of Cashier in the year 1979 by the petitioner U.P. State Spinning Mills Co. which has a Unit in Maunath Bhanjan, Azamgarh. In the other case, the respondent Surendra Singh's; tenure was terminated in the year 1984 when he was working as Assistant Fitter, that too in a mill in Maunath Bhanjan.3. The matters were raised in conciliation ; proceedings and the State U.P. was informed of the said controversy for making a reference, if any, under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. In Rajiv Ratan Lal Srivastava's case the State Government passed an order on October 30, 1990 that since the Government did not consider the matter fit, no case for reference was made out. It appears that another order was passed on October 1, 1984 reiterating the said stand when the workman was informe...
Kashi Ram Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All83
ORDER1. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under the Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dr. Smt. Jagjit Kaur owned and held property No. 3A, 3416 sq. Smt. Jagjit Kaur filed a return under Sec. 6 of the Act in the year 1976. A draft statement under Sec. 8(4) of the Act was issued on 15-10-77 whereby it was proposed to acquire 1416 sq. M. of the land as being surplus. At the instance of the landholder Jagjit Kaur, the said order was set aside and she was afforded an opportunity to file objection. After taking into consideration the objections filed by Smt. Jagjit Kaur the competent Authority held by order dated 23-1-78 that Smt. Kaur was holding 1416 sq. m. of the land in excess of the ceiling limit, Aggrieved by that order Smt. Kaur filed an appeal No. 73 of 1978. The ord...
Smt. Hamida Vs. Smt. Humer and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All346
ORDER1. This is the plaintiff's Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short the Code), in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over plot No. 103 measuring 0.72 acre situated in village Tanda, Tahsil Suar, district Rampur.2. The case of the plaintiff appellant was that she is the Bhumidhar in possession on the basis of sale deed dated 7-8-1969 executed by Smt. Fatma in her favour. She has constructed a pucca/ house on a part of it and has laid foundation on a different part and remaining part of the land is used for agricultural purpose. The plaintiff is in exclusive possession, but the defendants, without any right are trying to interfere with her possession. Hence the suit was filed.3. The defence was total denial of the plaint allegations. It was alleged that the plaintiff was not in possession. The land was valued more than Rs. one lakh. A deed was execute...
K.K. Kohawal Vs. Addl. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT182(All)
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Hoard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents, at length and in detail.2. The petitioners are the owners/drivers of the trucks seized for violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. By means of the impugned notices dated 5th June, 1992 they have been called upon to show cause as to why :-(a) their trucks may not be confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as applicable to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in terms of Section 12 of the said Act;(b) penalty may not be imposed on them under Rule 52A(5) and 209A of the Central Excises Rules, 1944.4. The contention of the petitioners before us is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, they cannot be held to have contravened any provision of the law and as such the impugned notices are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.5. Upon giving our anxious consideration, we are clearly of the opinion that...
Ravi Kant Keshri and Another Vs. Krishna Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All230
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the minor child Smrity, who at present aged about 2 years 4 months from the custody of opposite parties Sri Krishna Kumar Gupta and others. The petition was filed by Sri Ravi Kant Keshri, the father of the minor child. Ravi Kant Keshri at present is aged about 25 years. He was married to Smt. Anita Gupta daughter of opposite party No. 1 Krishna Kumar Gupta. It is said in the petition that late Anita Gupta was a heart patient. This fact was concealed at the time of marriage.2. After the marriage, the couple lived happily and the child Baby Smirity was born on 6-2-90. The birth of the child was stated to be by surgical operation which has been controverted and said to be a case of forcep delivery. Unfortunately, Smt. Anita Gupta who had gone to her parents, died on 24/25th of February 1990 at Ambikapur. The minor Baby Smirity continued to live with the maternal grandfather and ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Brij Rani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(All)46; [1993]201ITR307(All)
R. K. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow. The reference arises out of the proceedings relating to levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act ( for short 'the Act ') in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The following common question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to recompute the penalty as per the'law that prevailed when the returns were due ?'2. We may at once notice that the measure of penalty imposable under Section 18(l)(a) of the Act for non-submission or delayed submission of returns without reasonable cause between April 1, 1965, and March 31, 1969, was equivalent to two per cent. of the tax for every month during which the defau...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »