Allahabad Court July 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Handloom Emporium
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)645; [2006]282ITR431(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for the assessment year 1981-82 for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) specially when the revised return was filed after the search operation when loose papers recovered indicated unrecorded transactions and unrecorded unexplained investment?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The assessee opposite party hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') was a partnership Firm and was carrying on the business of purchase and sales o f cloths and was also carrying on the business of money lending. Assessee filed return of income on 27.7.1981 showing loss of Rs. 3.660/- and thereafter. a search was conducted at the business premises on 23.9.1981 and also residential premises of the partner of the Firm under Section 132 and during the course...
Ganga Ram Singh Son of Sri Jagan Singh Vs. State of U.P.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC236; 2005CriLJ3681
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Devraj Advocate for the applicant and Sri Mukhtar Alam Advocate for the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 27.3.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Nagina, District Bijnor confirmed in Revision No. 156 of 1995 vide order dated 16.8.1997 by the Additional session Judge, Bijnor. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that the applicant's firm M/s singh Brothers, Dhampur, District Bijnor is a registered firm and deals in the business of Khandsari sugar, The applicant Ganga Ram (complainant) is managing partner of the firm. The contesting opposite parties are engaged in manufacturing the crystal less (Boora) and used to purchase sugar from the complainant on credit. It is stated that after the accounts were settled, outstanding amount of Rs. 53,000/ was due against the opposite parties. An account payee cheque dated 25.9.1991 was issued for a sum of Rs. 54,000/ dra...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Moradabad General Art Metal Mills
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: [2006]282ITR510(All)
R.K. Agrawal and Rajes Kumar, JJ.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act) relating to the assessment yea; 1972-73 for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the CIT(A) 's finding that the penalty order under Section 271(10(c) 'had been passed after the expiry of the limitation period stipulated under Section of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee') for the assessment year 1971-72 filed two returns of income one for the period 01.04.1971 to 30.06.1971 disclosing the income of Rs. 34,510/- and the another return for the period 01.04 1971 to 31.03.172 disclosing the income of Rs. 1,76,172. The Income Tax Officer complete one assessment in respect of both the periods at Rs. 9,15,710/- vide order dated 2...
Anil Rice Mill Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)69; [2006]282ITR236(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the for the assessment year 1986-87 for the opinion of this Court:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in adding the cash credit in the income of the assessee when persons in whose names the cash credit, had declared the same under amnesty scheme and had also been assessed as such on the respective amount credited in the account, despite the fact that those persons were closely related to the partners of the assessee firm?'2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The applicant assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessee') was a partnership firm consisting of two partners, Sri Prayag Narain Gupta and his son Pramod Kumar Gupta having equal shares. Assessee derived its income from manufacturing and sale of rice and rice bran and also from purchase and sale of food grains, pulses and oil seed. In the course of scrutiny of the account assessing authority found the following cash credit entries during ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Bajpur Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)590
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as Act') for the assessment year 1989-90 for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to grant of depreciation at the rate of 100% on the cost of high efficiency boiler installed and used in the assessee's factory.?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The assessee/opposite party hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is Cooperative Society and runs a Sugar Factory as well as a Distillery Unit. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation on a high efficiency boiler installed and used in the year relevant to the assessment year The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had used bagasse as fuel instead of coal and the boiler did not have an efficiency of 75...
Shiv Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3120
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, who alleges himself to be the owner of the premises in question, aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2003, dated 12th July, 2004, which has been executed by the authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by order dated 27th January, 2005, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :'(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Release Application No. 23 of 2003, Sushil Yadav and Ors. v. Rajendra Pratap Singh under Section 21A of Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure-) and to quash the ex-parte judgment and eviction order dated 12.7.2004, passed in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2O03, Sushil Kumar Yadav v. Rajendra Pratap Singh, under Section 21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure-7), and Execution order dated 27.1.2005 passed by Prescribed Authori...
Smt. Indra Sharma Vs. Lt. Col. S.K. Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3122
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Sripat and Sri Rajul Bhargava, advocates appearing for the revisionist Smt. Indra Sharma in Civil Revision No. 83 of 2005. Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, assisted by Madhav Jain, advocate appearing for the plaintiff respondents. Sri Murlidhar, senior advocate, assisted by Sri R. P. Singh, advocate appearing for the M/s. Guruji Motors Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Revision No. 84 of 2005 and one of the respondent in Civil Revision No. 83 of 2005.2. The Civil Revision No. 83 of 2005 is filed by Smt. Indra Sharma and Civil Revision No. 84 of 2005 is on behalf of M/s. Guruji Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others. Two revisions are consolidated. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Record of the lower court was summoned by a special messenger, which is also placed before me. The record is available as such I proceed to decide these revisions finally.3. Both the revisions have been filed challenging the ex par...
Aaftab Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Soyeb and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3867J
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, advocate, assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, advocate, counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This is defendant's appeal. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit No. 439 of 1982 against the appellant for a relief of possession over the house shown by figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 in the plaint. By way of amendment, relief of damages at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from 15.9.1982 till the date of possession was also claimed. The appellant filed his written statement on 9.3.1987 disputing each and every allegations in the plaint. The Munsif West, Ballia vide judgment dated 10.8.1994 decreed the plaintiffs suit for relief of possession but dismissed the claim of damages. The appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1994 and plaintiffs filed his cross-objection. The Additional District Judge, Ballia vide judgment dated 26.11.2001 dismissed the appeal and cross-objections.3. The dispute i...
Cit Vs. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)198CTR(All)590
Rajesh Kumar, J.The Tribunal, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for the assessment year 1989-90 for opinion to this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to grant of depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent on the cost of high efficiency boiler installed and used in the assessee's factory?'2. The brief facts of the case are as followsThe assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is co-operative society and runs a sugar factory as well as a distillery unit. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed 100 per cent depreciation on a high efficiency boiler installed and used in the year relevant to the assessment year. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee had used bagasse as fuel instead of coal and the boiler did not have an efficiency of 75 per...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pateshwari Electrical and Associated In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)353; [2006]282ITR61(All)
1. At the instance of CIT, Tribunal has referred three questions 1, 2, 3 and at the instance of assessee, Tribunal has referred the following question, which is marked as question No. 4 under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this Court relating to the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that income from leasing of Balrampur Lodge to SBI, was assessable as business income and not as income from house property?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that expenses incurred on Nainital property be allowed as business expenses ignoring the fact that these expenses were not at all related to business activity ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that treatment of receipts from workshop, cold storage...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »