Allahabad Court April 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. Jagannath Pd. Nankoo Pd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR58(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following three questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the application of the assessee filed by it before the Income-tax Officer under Section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not complying with the terms of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1951 ?' 2. We have heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, for the Department, and Sri Vikram Gulati, for the assessee. The relevant assessment year is...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamlapat Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR9(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following two questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of Section 139(8) of the Act have no application to reassessment proceedings ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct that the matter was highly debatable and that the provisions of Section 154 of the Act could not be invoked for levying interest under Section 139(8) of the Act ?' The facts of this case are that original return was submitted by the assessee on September 7, 1968, and the original assessment order for the assessment year 1968-69 was passed on December 31, 1971. The assessment was subsequently reopened under Section 148 and a fresh assessment order was passed on December 30, 1972. In this order dated December 30, 1972, there was no order ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR847(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following two questions have been referred for our opinion :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in its opinion that loan of Rs. 86,50,000 taken by the corporation created capital asset in the hands of the assessee within the Second Schedule of the Surtax Act, 1964 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee's claim was rightly allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. We have heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Department, and Sri Vinod Swaroop, for the assessee. The assessee is a corporation set up by the U. P. Government with a loan granted by the Government amounting to Rs. 9,93,664 and another loan was granted on March 31, 1970, of Rs. 86,50,000. It was claimed before the Income-tax Officer that in the computation un...
Chintamani Ghosh Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(All)498; [1996]222ITR578(All); [1999]106TAXMAN542(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following question has been referred for our opinion :'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 not covered by the proviso to Section 164(1) and was liable to be taxed at the rate of 65 per cent. under that section?'2. The assessee is a trust and the relevant assessment years are 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Part of its income was held to be specifically receivable on behalf of or for the benefit of the beneficiaries whose share was determinate and known. The remaining income was assessed in the hands of the assessee in the status of an association of persons. The assessments were made by the Income-tax Officer and the tax was levied treating the income of an association of persons for the respective, years. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax felt that the orders passed by the I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.K. Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR877(All)
1. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on/after April 1, 1976, and in that view cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74 and for this year the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c), on October 20, 1978, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000.3. The matter came up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Om Sons : [1979]116ITR215(All) , held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. Hence, this re...
Capoor R.N. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2223]; (1999)IIILLJ304All
P.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Srivastava, JJ.1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order, whereunder his request for payment of interest on the amount of gratuity, release whereof was withheld on account of pendency of a disciplinary enquiry against him, even though the said enquiry culminated in his favour, was rejected.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on June 30, 1984 while holding the post of Assistant Commissioner (Civil Supplies). The disciplinary proceedings, initiated against him during his service period, continued even after his retirement and, therefore, by an interim order, 10% deduction from his pension had been directed. However, the State Government, vide order dated October 7, 1988 decided to exonerate the petitioner and drop the departmental proceedings, which were initiated against him.3. In view of exoneration from the charges levelled against him, the petitioner became entitled for the release of the amount of ...
Raj Pati Saroj Vs. Regional Administrative Committee, Primary Agricult ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2186]; (1998)IIILLJ952All
R.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated October 7, 1983 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the appellate order dated March 18, 1986 (received by the petitioner on June 6, 1986) annexure Nos. 5 and 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ of mandamus against the respondents to pay the salary and to treat him in continuous service be issued.2. At the very outset it may be mentioned that this Court passed an order on November 12, 1983 that the petitioner be treated in service within a month of production of certified copy of the order. Another order was passed on May 12, 1983 that the petitioner will be paid the current salary, in future regularly from the date he joins and question of back salary will be decided at the time of the final hearing. The brief facts are mentioned hereunder:3. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operat...
Fanu Alias Irfan S/O Mahmood Ali (In Jail) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ275
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 6-1-96 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut, whereby he has ordered that the accused Fanu @ Irfan be tried in the regular court.2. In this case, an incident of rape took place on 22-10-94 at P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt. Hardwar. The accused Fanu @ Irfan was named as principal culprit. The victim was a girl of 8 years.3. Before the learned Magistrate concerned, the accused took the plea that he was a 'juvenile' and his case should be heard by the Juvenile Court only and not by a court of regular jurisdiction. Before the learned Magistrate, reliance was placed on a School Leaving Certificate, paper on 9/3, wherein the date of birth of the applicant was recorded as 20-1-81. According to this certificate, the age of the applicant on the date of occurrence was about 13 years. That certificate was proved by Sri Shakeel Hasan. Not only this, the opinion of the Chief Medical Off...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›