Allahabad Court January 2005 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.
Ankur Industrial Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2007)7VST43(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') arising from the order dated 23.9.2004 passed by full Bench of Trade Tax Tribunal U.P. Lucknow.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant established a new Unit at Rampur Road, Moradabad for manufacture and sale of Industrial Oxygen Gas in the year 1994. It was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act and also obtained registration under the S.S.I. District Industries Center, Moradabad. The Unit applied for exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the Act in respect of Industrial Gas and it was granted exemption certificate on 1.1.1996 for the period of nine years w.e.f. 14.12.1994, the date of first sale or 150 per cent of the fixed capital investment of Rs. 38,22,323/- i.e. up to tax amount of Rs. 57,33,384/- which were expires earlier.3. Applicant subsequently established another Unit as Unit No. 2 in the same premise...
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Ganesh Das and Sons (P) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)69
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 facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting interest levied under Section 215 of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the excess amount paid during the financial year even on the date subsequent to the date stipulated under Section 211 of the IT Act, 1961, was liable to be treated as advance tax for purposes of levying interest under Section 215 ?'2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1980-81. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows. The respondent-company had filed revised estimate of advance tax on 15th Dec., 1979, and paid additional tax only on 10th March, 1980, and not on or before 15th Dec., 1979. Due t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Kashmir Oriental Transport Co. (P) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)602
1. In both the IT References i.e., IT Ref. No. 212 of 1984, which relates to the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1974-75 and IT Ref. No. 56 of 1986, which relates to the asst. yr. 1975-76, the Tribunal, Allahabad, had referred the identical questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that, while considering the allowability of interest on borrowed funds from the firm, the account relating to unrealised hiring charges due from the firm could not be taken into account?2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present references are as follows:The respondent/assessee is a private limited company arrying on the business of transporting of goods and its head office is at Kanpur. On 31st Aug., 1966, it purchased a running business of a firm styled as M/s New Kashmir Oriental Forwarding Agency. Certain loans of the firm were also taken over by the respondent in the process. On 20...
Cit Vs. Laxmi Dal Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN625(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the interest paid by the firm to the HUFs of the partners is to be allowed under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 placing reliance in the case of Ram Lal & Sons. v. CIT : [1980]124ITR157(All) , in the facts and circumstances of the present case?2. Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in allowing some part of interest claimed by the assessee while the assessee has failed to charge any interest on the amounts advanced by it?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1983-84.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent assessee is a registered firm. During the assessment year in question it has paid interest of Rs. 12,619 to Sri Puran Chand, karta of Bhag...
Cwt Vs. Jitendra Kumar (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN466(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter refer-red to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital standing to the credit of Jitendra Kumar in M/s. Ratan Cold Storage along with the share of Jitendra Kumar in the appreciation of the value of the assets of M/s. Ratan Cold Storage is not assessable in the hands of the assessee in the status of HUF?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1985-86.3. We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, the learned standing counsel for the revenue and Sri Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the appearing for the respondent.4. The facts of the present case are similar to that of ITR No. 209 of 1988, ITR No. 62 of 1988 and WTR No. 70 of 1980 decided on 6-1-2005. This court has held that the share of profit in the firm and its ac...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khan and Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(All)595
1. The Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following two questions of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court :1. Whether the Tribunal's order deleting the addition of Rs. 13,96,080 is not vitiated on account of its failure to consider all relevant facts ?2. Whether the assessee had discharged its onus of proving that the stock statement submitted by it to the bank showed inflated figures ?2. The matter relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The assessee-respondent has been carrying on the business in re-rolling of M.S. rods. It has taken overdraft facility from the State Bank of India, Bulandshahar. On 31st March, 1979, i.e., on the last day of the accounting year, an amount of Rs. 5,10,114 was outstanding under the overdraft facility. The said overdraft was stated to have been secured against the plants, machinery and building. The ITO during the co...
Saraya Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC911
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether excise duty could be levied against the petitioners if the security holograms which were to be affixed by the distilleries on the bottles, pouches and canes under bound were wasted and could not be produced by the distillery before the excise department for verification.2. The petitioner distilleries have filed these writ petitions for quashing of the policy decision issued by the State Government dated 3.2.2001 and the circulars issued by the Excise Commissioner in pursuance of it, as arbitrary, invalid and against law. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1204 of 2004 is treated to be the leading writ petition.3. The petitioner, M/s. Saraya Industries Ltd., manufactures Indian Made Foreign Liquor (in short I.M.F.L.). It has licence for manufacture of potable liquor and carries on manufacturing activities at its distillery unit at Sardarnagar, district Gorakhpur. The petitioner had been paying excise du...
New Cawnpore Flour Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: [2005]275ITR45(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the opinion to this court :'(i) Is the order of the Appellate Tribunal restoring the case for fresh disposal back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) legally valid ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80.3. It appears that the Income-tax Officer while making the assessment had taken various points in the assessment orders which were under challenge before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who in his turn without giving any finding for proper adjudication simply stated that in view of the foregoing, that is, the various submissions and other correspondence as reproduced in the appellate order, the additions cannot be sustained. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was short and cryptic and he did not consider the different aspects of the matter. The Revenue...
Darshan Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Mangat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC292
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-landlords questions the order dated 24th November, 2003, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer exercising delegated powers of District Magistrate under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (In short 'the Act') declared the accommodation to be vacant and further the order dated 15th December, 2004, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed the parties to adduce evidence and fixed 14th January, 2005 as the next date.3. Admittedly the order dated 15th December, 2004 is interlocutory order. This Court normally do not interfere with the interlocutory orders in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not see any specific reason to interfere with the order dated 15th December, 2004. So far as order declaring vacancy dated 24th November, 2003 is concerned, it is stated by learn...
Union Bank of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC757; [2005(104)FLR893]; (2005)IILLJ972All; (2005)2UPLBEC1782
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Union of India, challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned award, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, U.P. (for short 'C.G.I.T.') in Industrial Dispute Case No. 115/92.3. The petitioner is a nationalised bank within the meaning of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was engaged as a contractor for supply of water in the Chowk Branch of the Bank at Allahabad for summer months only in April 1987 @ Rs. 5/- per day. The payment was shown as labour charges in the payment vouchers.4. Respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute claiming to have worked on the post of Waterman in the Chowk Branch of the Bank at Allahabad from 8.4.1987 to November 1989 except with artificial breaks. He also claimed that he had worked more than 240 day...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »