Allahabad Court February 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.
Dr. Rajni Kant Dave Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD510(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) sustaining the enhancement of income by Rs. 2 lacs.2. The assessee is an individual having income from carrying on services of pathology, X-Ray and ultrasound tests. Receipts disclosed during the year were Rs. 15,02,675. The AO noticed a register of receipts of X-Ray tests and ultrasound tests was maintained. Receipts were issued against charges received from the patients. Opening and closing stock inventories were also available. Cash book was maintained. However, according to him, there were following discrepancies : (ii) Day-to day consumption record was not there but a statement of opening stock, purchases, closing stock and consumption was compiled as desired by the Assessing Officer (AO). The closing stock in this chart showed some variations with the closing stock as per inventory as noted in the assessment order. (iii) The last cash receipt was Sl. No. 6507, which showed that there were 6507 patients, bu...
Choudhary Ram Harakh Chand Vs. State of U. P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All360
ORDERR.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This a writ petition filed by the petitioner Shri Choudhary Ram Harakh Chand seeking writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification No. 90/VIII-2(80-81)BHJ-AA dated 12-11-1980 and Notification No. 5603/5-8-XVI-1075-81 dated 27th February, 1984 (annexure Nos. 1 and 3 respectively). By virtue of which Notifications for acquisition of land of 2.02 acre was made on 12-11-1980 for the construction of Swasthya Raksha Sainiti Janta Hospital. Gorakhpur. Annexure No. 3 to ihe writ petition relates to declaration under S. 6 of ihc Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1894). After declaring the purpose of land to the public and it is mentioned that the objections under Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules. 1963 (hereinafter referred to as [he Rules of 1963) in consultation with the land acquisition committee constituted under Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1963 has been taken care of. This notification ...
Dr. Rajni Kant Dave Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(All)151
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A. M. :This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) sustaining the enhancement of income by Rs. 2 lacs.2. The assessee is an individual having income from carrying on services of pathology, X-Ray and ultrasound tests. Receipts disclosed during the year were Rs. 15,02,675. The AO noticed a register of receipts of X-Ray tests and ultrasound tests was maintained. Receipts were issued against charges received from the patients. Opening and closing stock inventories were also available. Cash book was maintained. However, according to him, there were following discrepancies :(i) No stock register of raw material was maintained;(ii) Day-to day consumption record was not there but a statement of opening stock, purchases, closing stock and consumption was compiled as desired by the Assessing Officer (AO). The closing stock in this chart showed some variations with the closing stock as per inventory as noted in the assessment order.(iii) The last cash ...
Hariharnath Agarwal and Sons (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR486(All)
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated October 18, 1993 (annexure 'D' to this writ petition), and for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire seized assets and money of the petitioner and to refund various amounts.2. We have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Department. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family of which Sri Ramendra Kumar Agarwal is a karta. The petitioner is carrying on the business of silver bullion, etc. On August 10/11, 1988, the officials of the Income-tax Department raided the business and factory premises of the petitioner and they seized Rs. 1,82,150 in cash and seized gold ornaments and silver goods worth Rs. 16,79,252 N. S. Cs. and F. Ds. of the face value of Rs. 50,040 and companies shares and other books of account as alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Thereafter it appears that proceedings under Section 132(5) o...
Alloy Steel Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT371(All)
ORDERR.K. Gualti, J.1. The petitioner has prayed a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 12th December, 1995 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for waiver in part. The petitioner had applied for dispensing with the pre-deposit of excise duty of Rs. 2,86,036/- demand from the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-Ill, Ghaziabad, which was the subject matter of appeal preferred before the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad who had affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector Central Excise. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner may deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac on or before 28th February, 1996 instead of Rs. 2,86,036/- which the petitioner was required to deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Heard learned counsel for the ...
Hargur Das Rao Chaubey Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC22; AIR1996All365
ORDER1. The issue involved tor consideration in both the above writ petitions requires tracing the chronological events which lakes us to pre-constitution era. The petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest of both the above writ petitions are plying- their vehicles on Etawah-Mainpuri-via-Karhal route (hereinafter referred to as the 'route in question') since 1948 on the basis of permanent stage carriage permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra from time to lime being valid upto 1991. In all 35 persons are plying on the route in question on the basis of permanent stage carriage permits and three other persons are operating on the route in question on the basis of temporary stage carriage permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra (R.T.A. Agra) since 1972.2. U.P. Government Roadways published a scheme dated 25-3-1954 under U.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950 in U.P. Gazelle daled 3-4-1954 purporting to be for exclusive operation of the v...
K.S. Steel Works Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(83)ELT29(All)
ORDER1. The short contention of the petitioner is that against the order of the adjudicating authority an appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal and then a pre-deposit for filing the appeal directed by the Tribunal was, made to the extent of rupees one lakh. It is said that the appeal has already been disposed of and the order of the adjudicating authority has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the adjudicating authority by the Appellate Tribunal.2. It is in this backdrop, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has become entitled to refund of rupees one lakh. We see no objection to the submission being made by the petitioner. On these facts the petitioner has become entitled to refund of ruppes one lakh as no demand existed after the order of the adjudicating authority was set aside.3. The petitioner, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to refund rupees one lakh representing the pre-deposit made by the petitioner ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Paper Mart
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(All)569; [1996]221ITR362(All)
1. This income-tax reference has been made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard learned counsel for the Department and Sri B.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the assessee. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm which sold papers to a mill on commission basis on behalf of Shri L.D. Laddha. In connection with these transactions, the respondent-firm paid Rs. 2,34,317 to Shri L.D. Laddha on various dates. According to the details of the payments, as contained in the books of account of the assessee-firm, they were all in sums less than Rs. 2,500. But this fact was disputed by this Department. The payee had shown in his books of account receipt of such payment in one lump sum and the payments in instalments as shown in the books of account of the assessee were not reflected in his books, Shri L.D. Laddha deposited money in the books of the same dates on which he received cash from the assessee-firm. All such deposits, in the bank also exceeded R...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mass Products (ind.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR456(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case having held that there was a change in the ownership of majority shareholding of the assessee-company, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that it did not amount to a change in the ownership of the assessee-company 2; Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the two lines of business carried on by the assessee-company in 1965 and 1971 constituted the same business within the meaning of Section 72(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was legally correct in allowing the assessee's claim for adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation in respect of the assessment years priorto the assessment year 1967-68, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajay Ice and Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR298(All)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Revenue requiring us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to this court for its opinion :' Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in entertaining the rectification application on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from record in their earlier order dated January 22, 1993, irrespective of the fact that it was a review application and the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Inasmuch as the abovementioned question is a question of law in our opinion, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer the same to draw up a statement of the case and refer the same to this court for its opinion.The application is allowed....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »