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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pramod Kumar Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR193(All)
1. The Revenue has made this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions for an opinion of this court :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the order of the first appellate authority that the assessee, a salaried employee of the LIC, was entitled to deduction at 50 per cent. on the incentive bonus received from his employer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee, a salaried employee of the LIC of India, was entitled to deduction at 40 per cent. under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the incentive bonus received from his employer ?' 2. Inasmuch as only question No. 1 arises from the Tribunal's order which is a question of law, in our opinion, we direct the Tri...
Surendra Mahan Seth Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR239(All)
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question to this court for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deposits constituted income of the firm from undisclosed sources ?'2. From a perusal of the statement of the case, it clearly appears that the deposits had been made by the partners on the very first day when the partnership firm came into existence. The question for consideration is whether such deposits can be taken to be the income of the assessee-firm. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in Income-tax Reference No. 152 of 1990--India Rice Mills v. CIT : [1996]218ITR508(All) , and then this court held that the onus was on the partners to explain the source of the deposits made on the very first day when they entered into partnership and if they failed, the amount could have been added in their hands only and not in the...
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Mahendra Singh and Othe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All38
ORDER1. This order disposes of appellant's application under 'Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure' (hereinafter referred to as the Code), filed on 6-9-1995, by which prayer has been made (o stay execution of the judgment and award dated 6-4-93 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in L.A.R. No. 58 of 1991 during pendency of this appeal.2. For the purposes of development of the industrial town of NOIDA the relevant notification seeking acquisition of about three acres of lands of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was made on 8-8-88 the possession of which was also taken by the Stale of U.P. on 4-10-1989. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 31.50 per sq. yard. Respondents 1 to 3, however, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. yard. Both sides adduced evidence. By the impugned judgment and award compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 93.75 per sq. yard which is under challenge in this appeal.3. The appellant in its applicat...
Dr. Rajesh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All336; (1996)2UPLBEC1313
ORDER1. The petitioner has completed his M.B.B.S. Course from Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad securing 56.5 percent marks and in the year 1989 completed his internship from S.R.N. Medical College and became eligible for Post Graduate Medical Course Entrance Examination (hereinafter culled as PGMEE). According to the recommendations of Medical Council of India he appeared in boih P.G.M.E.E. 1990 and 1991 conducted by the tucknow University and secured marks slightly less than fifty percent. The cut-off marks fifty percent introduced by the statutory Notification under FN/GN/A143/96/SNVsection 28(b) of the U.P. Stale Universities Act is arbitrary illegal and against the statutory norms. In as much as due to such cut off marks many seals remained vacant in different disciplines in the seven Medical colleges. The said notification while being held valid by Hon'ble Supreme Court when challenged, the Slate Government was directed to evolve the criterion whereby no seal in any academ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banaras State Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR126(All)
1. Raising identical questions, the Revenue made an application registered as I. T. A. No. 266 of 1993 relating to the assessment year 1984-85, which was decided by this court by order dated December 5, 1995.Following this court's order dated December 5, 1995, in the aforesaid I. T. A. No. 266 of 1993, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest was accrued to the assessee on sticky advances ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount written off as bad debt is not indudible for charging interest under the Interest-tax Act ?' 2. The application is, therefore, allowed....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yash Kumar Rastogi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR66(All)
1. Affidavit of service has been filed. The assessee despite sufficientservice has not put in appearance and we, therefore, heard standing counselonly. 2. In this application made under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the assessment year 1981-82 :.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who had directed the Income-tax Officer to take the status of the assessee as a Hindu undivided family instead of individual adopted by the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether an individual-assessee, who was unmarried at the time of partition of the bigger Hindu undivided family, can, on subsequently getting married claim the status of a Hindu undivided family in respect of the assets received on partition ?' 3. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, the above questions ar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR671(All)
ORDER--Sec. 263(1)(c) inserted by Finance Act, 1989, effect of.Ratio :Order of Tribunal holding that assessing officer's order merged in the order of appellate authority requires reconsideration as section 263(1)(c) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from 1-6-1988 and the order of the Tribunal was passed much earlier.Held :Section 263(1)(c) was inserted by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from 1-6-1988. If the amended provision is taken into aid, then the Tribunal will not be right in holding that the order of the assessing officer stood merged in the order of the appellate authority. Since the Tribunal did not and could not advert to clause (c) of section 263(1), as it passed its order on much earlier date, the matter requires reconsideration in view of section 263(1)(c) of the assessing officer. Application :Not to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Lal Rajaram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(All)119; [1999]235ITR156(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad Bench) referred the following questions for opinion of this court relating to the assessment year 1963-64 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in its opinion that the sum of Rs. 85,711 paid to Swadeshi Cloth Dealers Ltd. as interest on borrowed capital was an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in its conclusion that the amountof Rs. 4,740 was expenditure for the purpose of the business of the asses-see and the assessee was entitled for its deduction ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal's view that it is not correct that the liability of Rs. 19,952 was contingent in nature and it was allowable in the assessment year under consideration is legally correct ?' We first take up question...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rasulpur Sugar Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR631(All)
1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1973-74 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in directing the Income-tax Officer to make two assessments for the two different periods separately ?'2. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that one of the partners, Laxmi Narain Agarwala, died during the accounting year relating to the assessment year 1973-74 and then another partnership deed was executed. The Appellate Tribunal recorded a categorical finding of fact that in the earlier deed there was no stipulation that despite the death of one of the partners, the old firm will continue. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that upon the death of one of the partners, the earlier firm stood dissolved and a new firm under the second partnership deed came into effect. No exception can be taken to such fi...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N.P. Saxena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR595(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad Bench), referred the following question for the assessment year 1968-69 for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, could the Tribunal, while disposing of the rectification proceedings, take into consideration facts which it did not consider while hearing the appeal ?'2. The question before the Tribunal for the assessment year 1968-69was whether the assessee concealed the value of the property. In the originalorder, the Tribunal stated that the assessee disclosed the same value ofthe property for the assessment year 1968-69 which was decided by theTribunal and, therefore, there was no concealment on the part of theassessee.3. Thereafter, a rectification application was made before the Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue that the valuation of the property in question was not disclosed by the assessee on the basis of any determination done by the Appellate Tribunal, but the assessee disclosed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »