Allahabad Court August 1995 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banarshi Das Kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR365(All); [1996]84TAXMAN498(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. In pursuance of an order dated September 13, 1976, made by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Income-tax Applications Nos. 2 and 3 of 1976, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profits of Rs. 17,228 and Rs. 39,249 realised by the assessee-Hindu undivided family on the sale of jewellery and ornaments were income, liable to income-tax in the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively ?'2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal advocate, for the Revenue, and Sri V.B. Upadhya, advocate for the assessee.3. The assessee-respondent is a Hindu undivided family carrying on the business, inter alia, of sale of gold ornaments and jewellery. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the assessee sold certain jewellery to foreigners and earned the aforesaid amounts o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Allahabad Saint Paul Society
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR863(All)
R.N. Ray, J.1. Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Revenue, and none appeared for the assessee.2. We were asked to decide the following question as referred to under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as to :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in holding that the income of the assessee could not be brought to tax and hence the assessment itself was a nullity and that no interest could have been charged under Sections 139 and 217 notwithstanding the fact that the Tribunal's decision has not become final in view of the reference application under Section 256(1) filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax ?'3. The facts of the case are that the assessee had been claiming that it was a wholly charitable institution and its income should not be subject to tax under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention and assessed the tax and also c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C. Mittal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(All)371; [1996]217ITR759(All); [1996]84TAXMAN89(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'D.', Delhi), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether the assessee can, in law, be said to have discharged its onus under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty is exigible under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is in law justified in deciding the appeal without going into applicability of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee's case ?' 2. We have heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Sakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the assessee.3. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1969-70 for which the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 18,139. The income finally determined was, however, Rs. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brigadier B.D. Khurana
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(All)197; [1996]217ITR381(All)
R.N. Ray, J. 1. Heard Sri S. Chopra, learned counsel for the assessee, and Sri R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has made this reference to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for deciding the following common questions of law arising out of its order in I. T. A. Nos. 2867 to 2869/(Del) of 1978-79, dated December 30, 1978 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to statutory deductions provided in Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the income from pension ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal who decided the appeals presently under consideration, was bound to follow the decision of another Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on a similar point ? 3. Wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ram Ratan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(All)335; [1996]217ITR692(All); [1996]84TAXMAN410(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest derived by the minors on the investments made with the firm was not as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership and that it could not be included in the assessee's income under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's action in holding that the interest earned by the minors be bifurcated in two parts, (i) on initial deposits, and (ii) on accumulated profits and that the interest falling in the first category was to be excluded from the income of the father whereas the income falling in the second cat...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(All)363; [1996]217ITR661(All); [1996]84TAXMAN444(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law stated to he arising out of its combined order dated September 19, 1977, passed in I. T. A. Nos. 645 and 646 (Allahabad) of 1976-77 :'(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified to hold that the claim of partition was wrongly accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?(2) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct to hold that by separation of karta by taking away his share out of the assets subject-matter of partition among the members of the family a smaller Hindu undivided family comprising of mother and son cannot continue under the Hindu law ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee, Sri R.S. Agarwal and learned counsel for the Revenue, Sri Ashok Kumar.3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of Sri Ram Nath, his wife, Smt. Ramshri, and their son, Sri Om Prasad. The disput...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Kumar Gupta Vs. Vineeta @ Geeta Rani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC10
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant. List is revised. When the revision was filed, the Court was pleased to direct the applicant to serve the respondent. The respondent after service, has filed appearance through Sri R.P. Singh Chauhan and Sri A.K. Singh Chauhan. In the revised list, the learned Counsel for the respondent has not attended the Court. The Court was of the view at the time when the revision itself was filed, disposed of the revision finally as it relates to suit for restitution of conjugal rights/divorce under Hindu Marriage Act. The suit was filed in 1993.2. The impugned order is by the Family Court Judge, rejecting the application for amendment. Initially the suit was filed for restitution of conjugal rights u/ Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the suit, application was moved by the applicant for amendment in the plaint seeking addition of relief of divorce Under Section 13 of the Act. The Court below r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Baldeo Ji Maharaj.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(All)21
M. C. AGARWAL, J. :The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question, stated to be of law and to arise out of its order dt. 26th Aug., 1978, passed in ITA Nos. 2625 and 2626 (Alld) of 1977-78 for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77, for the opinion of this Cour : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the provisions of s. 13 are not applicable in this case and that the assessee trust is entitled to exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act?'2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent.3. The question was whether any part of the income or property of the assessee trust was during the concerned previous years used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-s. (3). One Sri Padampat Singhania was the trustee of the assessee-trust. He held over 20% profit sharing rights in M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996All203
ORDER1. The entire case in this writ petition is apparently based on a certain meeting which took place on 5 April, 1990 at 3.00 p.m. in the presence of an Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, while on tour at village Kasna and Ichchhar, District Bulandshahr and certain assurances which were given in the presence of five officials and the Member of the Legislative Assembly of the District, aforesaid. In reference to certain directions of the Hon'ble Minister and the decision which may have been taken at the meeting, either on the record or off the record, the petitioners apply to the High Court to seek a prerogative writ and by a certificate action, to examine ministerial responsibility.2. The first basic misconception of the petitioners is that the meeting of 5 April 1990 is a decision of the State. The petitioners call this a government order. This is not so. The conduct of the business of the State will be transacted only in accordance with Art. 166 of the Constitution of India. The issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Dutt Dubey (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2032
T.P. Garg, J.1. This appeal by Sheo Dutt Dubey son of Mathurai accused is directed against his conviction under Section 304, Part II, IPC and sentence to undergo five years' Rigorous Imprisonment passed by Sri M.B. Godbole, Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai vide his judgment dated 9-11-1979.2. The accused was charged under Section 302, IPC on the accusation : that on 3-5-1978-at about 10 a.m. in the town of Konch near the shop of Narain, he committed the murder of Khachere by inflicting Lathi injuries on him with the intention or knowledge of killing him. The accused claimed trial.3. Briefly the facts of the case are as under:-On 3-5-1978 at about 10.00 a.m. Parmai son of Khachere (since deceased) lodged a First Information Report, Ex. Ka 2, at Police Station Konch; that Sheo Dutt accused and Babu, both sons of Mathuri. who live in his mohalla, had dispute over the property between them and their relations were strained inter se. Further that his father, Khachere was on good terms with Ba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »