Allahabad Court October 2004 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Radha Krishna Temple Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)567; [2005]277ITR158(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. In the IT Ref. No. 7 of 1987 which arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the IT Act, the Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, Allahabad, was justified in holding that an investment of the value thereof received by a trust by way of donation cannot be treated as an investment within the meaning of Section 13 of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, in the law and on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ITO was wrong in invoking the provisions of Section 13(1) (certiorari quashing the order dated) and Section 13(2)(h) of the IT Act, 1961, in this case ?3. Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961, to the trust ?'2. Whereas in WT Ref. No. 11 of 1987, which arises under ...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Shukla Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)555; [2005]276ITR642(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:'Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the relief under proviso (c) to Section 23(1) of IT Act, 1961.'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80 of which the relevant previous year ends on 31st March, 1979. The applicant is an individual. He derives income from salary and property. He owns a property situated at B-40, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow. The ground floor of the property was let out on 1st Aug., 1978, to the Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500 out of which Rs. 1,250 was payable towards the installation of booster pump and other fixtures. The applicant claimed deduction under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Section 23(1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Sita Ram Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)576
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 26(3) of the GT Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court ;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the question of taking the amounts in question under the GT Act, 1958, cannot arise ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal is vitiated as it has failed to take into account that the return was filed by the HUF itself admitting the gift of the two amounts ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1972-73. The respondent is an HUF. Its Karta made two gifts in favour of Smt. Deva Gupta who is the wife of the Karta, the first one of Rs. 8,000 on 4th Sept., 1971, and the second one of Rs. 15,000 on 28th Sept., 1971. The Karta also executed a gift deed i...
Tag this Judgment!Minakshi Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC271; (2005)1UPLBEC253
1. This Full Bench has been constituted in pursuance of a reference order dated 14.2.2003 made by a learned Single Judge of this Court who referred the following question to us for our opinion:'In case an appeal is allowed against the order rejecting the application under Section 30 of UP. Trade Tax Act whether the-limitation provided under Section 21(4) will, Apply or limitation provided under Section 21(5) will apply for passing assessment order by the Assessing Authority, and in case Section 21(5) applies then whether the limitation runs from the date of service of the order or from the date of the order?'2. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.3. The facts of the case are that in relation to assessment year 1986-87 the Assessing Authority under the U.P. Trade Tax Act passed an ex parte order on 16.7.1992. The applicant moved an application under Section 30 of the Act for setting aside the ex parte order, and re-opening of the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Azimunnisa Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(All)72; [2005]277ITR48(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for opinion to this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest on the deposit falling to the share of the assessee accrued from year to year and, therefore, the entire interest of Rs. 1,98,238 was not liable to tax in the asst. yr. 1975-76 only?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1975-76. One Smt. Khatoon Bibi along with several other persons was owner of M/s Noori Sugar Factory. Smt. Khatoon Bibi has gone to Karachi in 1947 and the Asstt. Custodian, Evacuee Properties, had published a declaration that all the properties of Smt. Khatoon were evacuee property. On 20th March, 1956, the Competent Officer held that a share of 6 paise in the property in dispute belonged to Sm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Principal Officer C/O Arkay Wires (P) L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas250(All); (2005)193CTR(All)697; [2005]277ITR225(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in its opinion that the firms M/s Techno Sales Corporation and M/s Kumar Wire & Conductors were not sole selling agents of the company and, therefore, the provisions of Section 294(2) were not attracted ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of Section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, were not applicable ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessment year involved is 1973-74. The respondent-assessee is a private limited company, hereinafter referred to as the company. Its previous year for the asst. yr. 1973-74 commenced on 1st July, 1971, and ended on 30th June...
Tag this Judgment!Som Engineering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)693; [2005]277ITR92(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally right in holding that the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(o) were attracted to the case ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The reference relates to asst. yr. 1971-72. For the asst. yr. 1971-72, the applicant filed its return of income on 30th Dec, 1971, showing the total income of Rs. 71,870. However, the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 1,68,350. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealing the particulars of income and a notice was issued on 21st March, 1977. No reply was received. On 4th Oct., 1978, another show-cause notice was issued to the applicant requiring it to show cause as to why the penalty under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kusum Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)651; [2005]273ITR369(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ITO imposing penalty was illegal having been passed with the approval of the IAC in terms of the proviso to Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of IT Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the penalty on the ground of concealment of Rs. 15,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, when the ITO and the CIT(A) had applied the provisions of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the above Act ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The applicant is a lady and has been assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1,973-74 for which the releva...
Tag this Judgment!Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC342; 2005(1)ESC307
B.S. Chauhan and Dilip Gupta, JJ.1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 27.7.2004 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 27700 of 2004. While entertaining the petition, the Court had granted time to the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and also directed that in the meanwhile status quo with regard to the service of the petitioners and respondent No. 6 as prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 1.7.2004 shall be maintained and they shall be permitted to continue to work if they were already working prior to that date. It was further ordered that the question regarding payment of their salary shall be considered on the next date. The petition was directed to be listed in the week commencing 31st August, 2004.2. The writ petition, out of which the present special appeal arises, had been filed for quashing the order dated 1.7.2004, passed by the Joint Director of Education, Agra, by which he had declined to grant approval...
Tag this Judgment!Triloki and anr. Vs. Ivth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC363; 2005(1)AWC327
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, senior advocate, assisted by Sr. B.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No. 4.2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 25th March. 1987, passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, allowing Revision No. 136 of 1986, Girwar v. Triloki and Ors., and order of the same date allowing Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1986, Girwar v. Triloki and Ors., passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Prayer has also been made to quash auction sale and to quash the order dated 10th October, 1986, passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar dismissing the objection filed by the petitioners under Order XXI, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as withdrawn.3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are : respondent No. 3, Simaru (who died during pendency of the writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »