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.
S.P. Gupta and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1992
Reported in: 1993(68)ELT530(All)
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Duty of excise amounting to Rs. 5,94,731 /- together with penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been determined to be payable by the petitioner vide order dated 20th August, 1991 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, the respondent No. 3, under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the Act, read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 3 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the respondent No. 2, under Section 35B of the Act. The said appeal is pending consideration.3. The petitioner also applied under Section 35F of the Act for dispensing with the requirement of depositing the duty demanded from it.4. The respondent No. 2, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the question of undue hardship, as envisaged by the proviso to Section 35F, came to th...
Vishwanath Prasad Bhagwat Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)108CTR(All)119; [1993]202ITR469(All)
At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allabahad Bench), Allahabad, referred to this court the following questions relating to the assessment year 1969-70 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 144B appear in Chapter XIV dealing with procedure for assessment and are, therefore, procedural in nature and non-compliance therewith would be a procedural lapse ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in restoring the case back to the Income-tax Officer directing him to consider afresh from the stage where the irregularity intervened ?'The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 57,811. The assessing authority, ho...
Shiv Baran Singh and Others Vs. U.P. at Allahabad and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All247
ORDER1. This writ petition arises out of the orders passed in the suit filed under S. 176 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)2. The facts in brief are that Vishwam-bhar Singh, the respondent No. 10, filed suit for partition of the holding in question under S. 176/178/182 of the Act. The summons were issued but as there was no contest in the suit, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 31-10-1974 declaring the shares of the parties. The petitioner did not file appeal against the said decree and that became final.3. On 11-4-1978 the plaintiff filed an application for preparation of final decree before the trial Court in pursuance of the preliminary decree D/-30-10-1974. The trial Court issued summons to all the defendants. The petitioners were served with this summons. The summons was also issued to Tej Singh, one of the defendants. The process server reported that Tej Singh is lunatic and his mother has received summons on his behalf. On 11-...
Azimullah Mohd. Mushtaq Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR405(All)
S.N. Sahay, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of the order of this court dated May 5, 1988. The questions which have been referred to this court are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had not discharged its burden to rebut the presumption of concealment and to restore the penalty cancelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in overlooking the explanation dated February 2, 1987,filed before the Income-tax Officer, ignored by him but considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' The relevant facts are that the assesses had filed its return showing an income of Rs. 1,990 from brick-kiln business. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 12,000. During the assessment proceedin...
Sir J.P. Srivastava Group of Industries Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ342All
M.L. Bhat, J. 1. The Award dated May 24, 1983 in Adjudication case No. 45 of 1982, passed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the respondent No. 3 is prayed to be quashed by the petitioner. A direction is sought against the respondent No. 1 not to implement the said Award.2. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 3 was employed by the petitioner on contract basis after he had been superannuated in his personal employment. He was given the job of Typist/Stenographer. The respondent No. 3 was initially appointed for a period of three months on probation on August 8, 1979. Thereafter he was given employment on March 27, 1980 after being confirmed. On March 5, 1981 he was asked by a notice that his employment could not be continued after April 14, 1981. The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute that his services had been terminated illegally. He sought conciliation proceedings. The State Government referred the matter for adjudication of the dispute raised by the respond...
Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR122(All)
Om Prakash, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the inclusion of the value of the Jain NAgar Quarters, which properties had been transferred by the assessee-Hindu undivided family under the trust deed dated November 14, 1947? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the inclusion of the entire value of the properties known as Jain Glass Works and holding that no valid charge had been created on the properties in favour of Chhadami Lal Jain Degree College ?' 2. The facts relating to both the questions have been set out in detail in Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT : [1991]190ITR1(SC) . In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, the controversy is as to whether the value of the property, k...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jafar Hasan Khan. (L/H of Late Sabir Ha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(All)213
ORDERBY THE COURT :The Revenue has raised the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the CIT(A) according to which initial funds availability was worked out at Rs. 1,53,431 in asst. yr. 1968-69 when there was no material on record to justify it ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) that unexplained investment in purchase of bank drafts for the purposes of s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 worked out by applying Peak Credit Methods when each and every investment was found to be unexplained ?3. Whether, in absence of any material on record to prove rotation of money invested in purchase of bank draft, the Tribunal was correct in directing that for the purposes of s. 69A the unexplained investments be taken on the basis of formula spelt in paras 21 and 22 of order dt. 30th September, 1986 of the CIT(A) ?'...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›