Allahabad Court December 1996 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.
Swadesh Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)62ITD284(All.)
Contention of the assessee that the assessing officer had no jursidction to pass on order under section 154 since his order dated 25-9-1991 allowing interest and giving effect to the order of the Tribunal has merged with the order dated 10-9-1993 under section 263, could not be accepted as the Commissioner had not decided on the question of interest under section 244(1A) though she might have considered it in her notice to the assessee.The assessing officer had allowed interest under section 244(1A) amounting to Rs. 7,60,504 in his order dated 25-9-1991 giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 22-3-1991. Thereafter, the Commissioner took a view in his order under section 263 that the proviso to section 240 inserted with effect from 1-4-1989 would be applicable as it was declaratory and consequently retorspective. In view of this proviso if the assessment is annulled, the refund shall become due only of the amount of tax paid in excess of the tax chargeable on the total income ...
Swadesh Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(All)155
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :These three appeals filed by the assessee are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.ITA No. 64 All/19962. This is the main appeal and the dispute relates to an order under s. 154 of the Act, dt. 16th January, 1995, passed by the AO withdrawing interest under s. 244(1A) of the Act on refund allowed to the assessee by an earlier order dt. 17th March, 1994, passed by the AO giving effect to an order under s. 254 passed by the Tribunal. The order under s. 154 resulted from a series of earlier orders. A synopsis of the relevant dates and orders is given below in chronological order for the sake of convenience :Sl. No.DateRemarks1.31-7-1974Time-limit for filing a return under s. 139(1) of the Act.2.7-11-1974Extension allowed by the AO for filing the return under proviso to s. 139(1) of the Act on an application in Form No. 6 filed by the assessees.3.6-12-1974Return filed by the assessee under s. 139(4) of the Act.4.23-2-1977Revised return fil...
Chandra Kumar Seth Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)62ITD106(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) confirming imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,324 under s. 271B of the Act for delay in obtaining and filing an audit report under s.44AB of the Act.2. The relevant facts are that the turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lacs and, therefore, the accounts were required to be audited under s. 44AB of the Act before the specified date and report obtained by that date. The specified date for the relevant year was 31st July, 1988 and audit report dt. 31st July, 1988 was obtained, but it was filed along with the return of income on 31st August, 1989.3. There was no compliance to a notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271B of the Act. The AO, therefore, held that a default had been committed and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,324.4. It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the accounts had been audited in time on 31st July, 1988, but return could not be filed along with the report as assessee's counsel remain...
Chandra Kumar Seth Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(All)99
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) confirming imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,324 under s. 271B of the Act for delay in obtaining and filing an audit report under s. 44AB of the Act.2. The relevant facts are that the turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lacs and, therefore, the accounts were required to be audited under s. 44AB of the Act before the specified date and report obtained by that date. The specified date for the relevant year was 31st July, 1988 and audit report dt. 31st July, 1988 was obtained, but it was filed along with the return of income on 31st August, 1989.3. There was no compliance to a notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271B of the Act. The AO, therefore, held that a default had been committed and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,324.4. It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the accounts had been audited in time on 31st July, 1988, but return could not be filed along with the report as asse...
Rakesh Bihari Gupta Vs. Vice-chancellor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC291
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing mandamus to the respondent-University to admit the petitioner in M.Sc. Geology. The averments made in the writ petition reveal that the petitioner had passed his B.Sc. in Geology from Chitrakut Gramodaya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Chitrakut, Satna in 1st division in the year 1994-95 and secured 2038 marks out of 2800 marks, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, The petitioner applied for the admission in M.Sc. previous in respondent-University and could not find any favour though the admissions had been made in the said course only on the basis of merits.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the candidates/students, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner, from other institutions Universities have been admitted.3. Respondent-University has filed the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit and the main ground taken by the respondent-University refusing the admission to the petitioner is that the respon...
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1996
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT34(All)
ORDER1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The contention of the petitioner is that though its appeal was heard on 13-11-1996, decision has not been pronounced so far and without awaiting decision on the appeal and on the stay application made by the petitioner, the respondents are rushing up with the recovery.3. On these facts, the petition is disposed of finally directing the Central Excise Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad (Respondent No. 1) either to decide the appeal within ten days and if that is not possible, then to decide the stay application within that period from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said respondent by the petitioner, who undertakes to produce the same within three days from today.4. Until decision on the appeal or stay application as the case may be, further recovery proceedings will remain stayed against the petitioner.5. If the petitioner fails to take steps as aforesaid then the stay order will stand vacated.6. Certified copy of t...
M/S. Sri Durga Glass Works, Firozabad Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All179
ORDERR.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the above two writ petitions as there is a common question of law involved.2. Sri Arun Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions, has made a statement at the bar that he does not press the vires of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.). The petitioner's counsel's submission is that the glass industries are not specified in Schedule 1 as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, which runs as under :--'2(c). 'Specified industry' means any industry specified in Schedule I.'Therefore, the cess cannot be levied on the glass industry.2A. The petitioner seeks toquash the recovery orders issued by the competent authority for realisation of amount mentioned in the citations annexure-1 to Writ Petition No. 15872 of 1993 as well as the impugned judgments andorders dated 18-9-1989 and 8-5-1991, wherein the assessment orders subsequently merged along with recovery ce...
Sanad Kumar Niranjan and ors. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas511(All)
R. K. Mahajan, J.1. In this writ petition the short question for decision is whether a recovery certificate under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1972'), can be issued in view of the appeal pending in respect of that amount which is covered under the recovery certificate before the appellate court after the suit has been decreed by the lower court. The facts of this case are briefly stated hereunder :2. It appears that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 on May 4, 1979, from respondent No. 3, Bank of Baroda, Orai, which was repayable in 36 instalments for the purchase of a truck. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit and the learned Civil Judge, Jalaun, decreed it. The appeal was filed against the aforesaid order and the same is still pending.3. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate dated May 25, 1995, and the citation dat...
Surprise Hotel Private Limited Vs. the U.P. Financial Corporation and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas340(All)
ORDER1. The petitioner M/s. Surprise Hotel (Private) Limited got sanctioned a loan from respondent No. 1 i.e. U. P. Financial Corporation (U. P. F. C.) of Rs. 44,80,000-00. Out of which Rs. 43,93.000-00 was disbursed to the petitioner firm. The petitioner also took a loan of Rs. 87.2 lakhs from respondent No. 2 i.e. Pradeshiya Industrial and investment Corporation of U. P. Limited (PICUP). The hotel was started at some distance of Hardwar and could not pick up business according to the allegations of the petitioner and it ran into rough weather and ultimately it could not repay the loan as agreed. It is alleged that the business of the hotel proved to be in loss on account of terrorist activities and Ultarakhand agitation and mushroom growth of Dharamshalas, in the Hardwar. The proprietor of the petitioner firm i.e. J. P. Dubey also expired on 28-12-1995 and it became more difficult for her wife etc. to run it. In brief, outstanding liability went on increasing and despite efforts made...
Hari Vidya Mandir Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1126All; (1996)4UPLBEC2566
R.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by petitioner seekinga writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuscommanding the respondents not to enforce thenotification dated December 1, 1984(Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The notification relates tothe enforcement of minimum wages to the teachersand staff of the Primary Schools issued in exerciseof the powers under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)and Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 readwith Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 ofthe Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act No. 11 of1948) read with Section 21 of the General ClausesAct, 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897). It was issuedafter having invited objections from the affectedparties and suggestions in respect of proposalspublished. The notification is to regularise wagesof untrained teachers, trained teacher and JuniorBasic Teacher etc. So it relates to the trained and untrained teachers' rates and wages from Rs. 325 to 515/- per month. In this notification the category ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »