Allahabad Court March 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.
Smt. Poonam Kumari Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD106(All.)
1. This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee praying for recall of the order of the Tribunal and restoration of the appeal.2. It is stated in the application that the appeal was decided by the Tribunal on 30-4-1992. It was heard earlier on 30-3-1992 and after hearing the Authorised Representative for the department, the counsel for the assessee, Shri V.K. Rastogi, Advocate was not called upon by the Hon'ble Bench.3. It is also stated that the Tribunal relied on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 981 (All.)/1977-78, which was not cited by the department and the counsel for the assessee was not afforded with an opportunity of replying to it.4. It is also stated that the issue before the Tribunal was not the cash credit or deposits under section 68 of the Act. The department had come up in appeal against the protective assessment and the Income-tax Officer had not made any substantive assessment so far. The Tribunal had not recorded any finding on this issu...
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD99(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order under s.263 passed by the CIT setting aside the assessment order with directions to reframe the same, after taking into consideration certain observations made by him.2. Ground No. 3 states that the CIT failed to allow proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, at the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground. It is accordingly rejected.3. Before going to the other grounds, the course of events and the facts of the case should be noticed. The assessment order under s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 27th March, 1991. Income was computed at a loss of Rs. 68,96,050. However, tax was computed under s. 115J of the Act by making the following observations : "Actual book profit as per s. 115J is taken at Rs. 25,64,887 (Book profit Rs. 22,07,540 + foreign exchange fluctuation Rs. 3,57,347) 30 per cent of which works out to Rs. 7,69,466, issue notice of de...
B.i.C. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD210(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) upholding the rectification under s. 154 of an intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.2. The facts of the case are given in chronological order briefly as under :1. 31-12-1991 Original return filed showing current loss of Rs. 23,65,68,711 and carried forward unabsorbed2.4-2-1992 Notice under s. 143(2) issued and served on the assessee on 20th Feb., 1992.3. 17-3-1992 Processing under s. 143(1)(a) done. Prima facie adjustment made reducing the loss by Rs.4.5-5-1992 Revised return filed showing total loss at Rs. 123,81,80,860.5. 25-5-1992 Notice under s. 142(1) issued for hearing on 1st June, 1992.6. 27-8-1992 Application given by the assessee under s. 154 of the Act seeking deletion of additional tax7. 31-8-1992 Order under s. 154 passed accepting the assessee's contention and cancelling additional8. 24-1-1994 Regular assessment completed under s. 143(3) of the Act computing a loss of Rs. 19,10,39,8809. 22-4-199...
B. I. C. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(All)521
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) upholding the rectification under s. 154 of an intimation under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.2. The facts of the case are given in chronological order briefly as under :Sl. No.DateEvent1.31-12-1991Original return filed showing current loss of Rs. 23,65,68,711 and carried forward unabsorbed losses and allowances of Rs. 10,10,32,155. The total loss came to Rs. 124,68,20,270 (sic).2.4-2-1992Notice under s. 143(2) issued and served on the assessee on 20th Feb., 1992.3.17-3-1992Processing under s. 143(1)(a) done. Prima facie adjustment made reducing the loss by Rs. 91,61,254. This resulted in charging of additional tax under s. 143(1A) amounting to Rs. 9,48,189.4.5-5-1992Revised return filed showing total loss at Rs. 123,81,80,860.5.25-5-1992Notice under s. 142(1) issued for hearing on 1st June, 1992.6.27-8-1992Application given by the assessee under s. 154 of the Act seeking deletion of additional tax...
J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(All)433
ORDERV. K. SINHA, A.M. :This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order under s. 263 passed by the CIT setting aside the assessment order with directions to reframe the same, after taking into consideration certain observations made by him.2. Ground No. 3 states that the CIT failed to allow proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, at the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground. It is accordingly rejected.3. Before going to the other grounds, the course of events and the facts of the case should be noticed. The assessment order under s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 27th March, 1991. Income was computed at a loss of Rs. 68,96,050. However, tax was computed under s. 115J of the Act by making the following observations :'Actual book profit as per s. 115J is taken at Rs. 25,64,887 (Book profit Rs. 22,07,540 + foreign exchange fluctuation Rs. 3,57,347) 30 per cent of which works out to Rs. 7,69,46...
income-tax Officer Vs. Rama Medical Stores
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD110(All.)
1. These are two appeals by the department which challenge the deletion of penalty imposed in a sum of Rs. 24,768 and Rs. 27,900 under section 271B of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90.2. Assessee carries on sale and purchase of medicines and maintained two set of accounts, one for their head office and the other for their lone branch. The total sales for head office and the branch office for these years stood as under :2. 1989-90 24,71,151-54 31,26,965-95 ------------ ------------ Separate profit and loss accounts and balance-sheet were drawn by the assessee for their head office and the branch office.3. It has been the assessee's case that they ran an honest and bona fide belief that since in the head office and the branch officer their sales remained below the statutory limit of Rs. 40 lakhs they were not required to get their account books audited. This belief in the submission of the assessee validly constituted "reasonable cause".Apart of...
income-tax Officer Vs. Bechanlal Amar Nath
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1982)1ITD358(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the AAC, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, cancelling the penalty under section 271(1) (c) imposed by the ITO.2. The assessee is a HUF. There was a search of the assessee's residential and business premises on 27-8-1974 in the course of which certain materials were seized. We were given to understand that on the basis of the material seized at the time of the search an order under section 132(5) was passed by the ITO. For the assessment year 1975-76, under consideration here, the assessee in the Annexure to Part III of the return - "Sums not included in the total income and claimed as not taxable"-disclosed number of items, investments, etc., which, according to the assessee, could not be treated as its income and were not liable to tax. Here it would be necessary to point out that this included investments in potatoes put in the cold storage and investments in the business of fertilisers, etc., as appearing in the Gutka (small ...
Mohd. Shaheed Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All20
ORDER1. The prayer of the petitioner is to command the respondents to pay him compensation of his lands acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as per the provisions of Act itself after quashing the order D/- 23-7-1988 passed by Respondent No. 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nagar Mahapalika), Allahabad (as contained in Annexure-2) by which the Respondent No. 2 has come to a conclusion that as two years period has expired from the date of notification issued under S. 6 of the Act in September, 1986 and the proceedings were not affected by any stay order passed by any Court hence it is not possible to make an award in view of the provisions of S. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. That writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of one of us (N. B. Asthana, J.) and M. L. Bhat, J. since retired. 3. Bhat, J. after recording his reasons granted following reliefs to the petitioner:-- '(a) By a writ of mandamus respondent No. 2 is directed to d...
Official Liquidator Vs. Ram Swarup and Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All72; [1997]88CompCas569(All)
ORDER1. Company Application No. 15of 1977 has been filed by the Official Liquidator under Sections 542, 543, 468, 469 and 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 against Ram Swarup, Ex-director of M/s Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Milts (P) Limited (in liq.) (in short Company in liq.). Company Application No. 16 of 1977 has been filed under similar provisions against Raj Rajeshwar Swarup and 3 others who are (he heirs of Late Lala Roshan Lal, one of the directors of the Company (in liq.). Substantially the points involved in the aforesaid cases are almost same and as such are being decided by a common judgment.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that Panna Lal and Roshan Lal were two brothers. In the year 1932 a registered partnership Firm was started of which Roshan Lal and his son Ram Swamp and his two nephews namely, Purshottam Dass and Jugal Kishore (sons of Panna Lal) were the partners. In the year 1951 me partnership Firm was converted into a Private Limited Company ofwhich the four partners me...
M/S. Orai Oil Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Uttar Prades ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All92
ORDER1. Whether the transfer of plants and machineries fastened to earth reported to be in a removable condition by a transferor who had no right of title to the land and the transferee having not acquired any interest in the land by reason of such transfer could be defined as immovable property for the purpose of imposing Stamp Duty on a document regarding such transfer sought to be registered under the Indian Registration Act is an interesting question which arises in the present writ petition.2. Plot Nos. D-17 and 8-14, Industrial Estate, Orai was developed by the U. P. State Industrial Development, Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'UPSIDC' a Stale Government Undertaking. The UPSIDC allotted the said two plots in favour of M/S Bhatinda Chemicals for setting up an Oil Factory on a premium of Rs. 4,82,372,00 on an average annual rent of Rs. 831.35. M/s Bhatinda Chemicals, in order to establish the Factory, had installed plants and machineries in the said plot. But ultimately it...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »