Allahabad Court September 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. Bhagwan Dass and Brothers. (ita No. 47 ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(All)401
ORDERBY THE COURT :These are cross-applications, one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee, raising the following questions under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, for the opinion of this Court :ITA No. 47 of 1992 :'1. Whether the Honble Tribunal on the facts and circumstances of the case were right in law in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 94,392 ignoring the fact that the addition made was not on the sale of agarbatties, but was on the sale of other items of general merchandise ?2. Whether the Honble Tribunal while giving the decision to delete the trading addition of Rs. 94,392 were correct in law in giving a finding on the facts which were not relevant to the said trading addition ?3. Whether the Honble Tribunal were right in law in entertaining a fresh evidence and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 44,100 made on account of unexplained cash seized ignoring the fact the evidence produced before the Tribunal was never produced before the Assessing Officer ?4. Whether, on the f...
Kailash Nath Singh Vs. the District Judge, Mirzapur and Anothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All67
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge, Mirzapur dated 21-5-1992, allowing the appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, in the matter of injunction.2. Petitioner, Kailash Nath Singh filed a suit as suit No. 147 of 1991 (Kailash Nath Singh v. Setu Bandh Rameshwar Pratap Singh) for permanent injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from raising construction and changing the nature of the land in dispute, shown as Ka, Kha, Ga, on the ground that plaintiff is co-tenant and the parties are in joint possession over the disputed land. According to the petitioner the land is ancestral property and parties are descendants from common ancestor Raj Kumar Singh. Plaintiff is coparcener of the joint Hindu Family and disputed land is ancestral property and no partition has taken place. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the disputed land and from raising construction over the...
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT169(All)
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Murlidhar, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Shishir Kumar, the learned counsel representing the respondents.2. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the interlocutory order dated 3rd October, 1991 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in exercise of its powers under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the Act.The relevant facts are these :3. A show cause notice-cum-demand dated 21st August, 1990 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Ruies, 1944 demanding a duty of excise amounting to Rs. 32,52,555.91 in respect of fuel oil received by it. The petitioner submitted its reply on 1st October, 1990.4. By means of the order dated 21 st January, 1991 the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, confirmed the demand of duty of excise and also imposed penalty...
Udairaj Kumar and Others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All98
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-7-1989 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad and the order dated 24-4-1991 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 110 of 1988 arising out of the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration and partition under S. 229-B and S. 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The admitted pedigree between the parties is as under:-- Puran Prasad | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Ram Chandra Ram Ballabh Ram Kishan (died issueless Saran | in 1892 | Hari Raj Saran | | | Udairaj Kuamr --------------------------------- | | | | Raghuraj Saran Sheoraj Saran | (Widow | | Chandrawati | | | | | -------------------------------- | | | | | | |Raj Kumar Giriraj Kumar Indra Prakash | | (D4) | | | -------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | Chandra Vinod Krishna | | Prakash Kumar Kumar | | (D1) (D2) (D3) | -------...
Kamal Bidi Factory Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1994LC291(Allahabad); 1993(64)ELT387(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 5-6-1992 (Annexure 38 to the writ petition.2. This order has been passed by the Tribunal on the petitioner's application under Section 35F to deposit duty and penalty.3. I have perused the said order in detail. Although the petitioner had pleaded that in view of his financial difficulty, he was unable to deposit the duty and penalty levied by the Collector this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order. In my opinion whenever an application for waiver or stay is made before the appellate authority in a tax case one of the relevant considerations is the financial position of the appellant. If the appellant is not able to pay tax or penalty imposed or is able to pay only a part of it in view of his financial difficulty, it is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary to demand the full tax or penalty levied, which in fact amounts to denying h...
Tilak Chitra Mandir and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All30
ORDERD.S. Sinha, J.1. The principal prayer of the petitioners is that the respondents be commanded to give grant-in-aid to them for a period of five years in accordance with the Government order dated 21st July, 1986, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to this petition.2. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 assert that acting upon the promise for the grant-in-aid held out by the Government through the aforesaid Government order dated 21st July, 1986 they constructed a cinema hall and applied for licence for exhibition of cinematograph films therein with the benefit of grant in-aid by way of exemption in entertainmenttax but the respondents are illegally denying the benefit of grant-in-aid assured in the Government order.3. To buttress their claim the petitioners invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel and place reliance upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amrit Banaspati Company Limited v. State of Punjab, reported in 1992 UP Tax Cases 593.4. Having caref...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tej Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR160(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referredthe following question relating to the assessment years 1971-72 and1972-73 for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in excluding from the assessments of the assessee (individual) interest income for the assessment years .1971-72 and 1972-73 ?'2. The Tribunal has clearly held that, following a decision of this court, the interest income was added in the assessment made on the Hindu undivided family styled as Messrs. Gulab Rai Govind Prasad on which the main assessment was made. In the hands of the instant assessee (individual), only a protective assessment was made. Interest income having been assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family under the main assessment on the facts of this case, we hold that the same could riot be assessed in the hands of the instant assessee (individual).3. We, therefore, answer the question in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radha Swami Satsang (No. 1)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR449(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of the court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhaswami Satsang, a religious institution, is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in entertaining the appeals filed by the assessee with respect to the charge of interest under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the Supreme Court has found in the case of assessee-trust, which is reported as Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT : [1992]193ITR321(SC) , that the income of the assessee-trust is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Following this authority...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radhaswami Satsang (No. 2)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR493(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income derived by the Radhaswami Satsang, a religious institution, is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The matters relating to the subsequent years of this very assessee-trust have come up before us today in I. T. R. No. 127 of 1980 (CITv. Radha Swami Satsang (No. 1) : [1993]201ITR449(All) ), raising one similar question amongst others, which has been answered by us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that the assessee-trust is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.3. The instant reference has been made by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of the assesse...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bihari Lal Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR695(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question relating to the assessment year 1975-76 for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty on the date on which it was passed ?'2. Undisputedly, reference in penalty proceedings was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by the Income-tax Officer when the jurisdiction was vested in him. It is said that, by virtue of Section 65 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, jurisdiction was taken away from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner with effect from April 1, 1976, who passed the penalty order on October 6, 1987. This court has held in CIT v. Brindaban Kedarnath : [1992]197ITR230(All) that, for levying penalty, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should not only possess jurisdiction on the date of referen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »