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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Das Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)370
Rajes Kumar, J.1. 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' Act') for the assessment year 1981-82 and 1982-83 for opinion to this Court.'(a). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the CIT (A) holding that the difference between the stock value shown in the books of accounts of the assessee and value disclosed to the bank was not assessable to tax as deemed income?''(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the CIT (A) for granting renewal of registration to the Firm?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The assessee/opposite party hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') was a resident having the status of unregistered Firm and the accounting period ending with 31st March, 1981 and 31st March, 1982 respectively for the assessment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar Bharti and Shri Vijay ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: [2006]282ITR496(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.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 year 1986-87 for opinion to this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally right in confirming the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) who held that the A.O. was not having jurisdiction to make an assessment on AOP of two members.'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. The Assessing Authority issued notice under Section 148 of the Act to Sri Ashok Kumar Bharti, Sri Vijay Kumar Goel and Sri S.P. Garg members of AOP through Shri Ashok Kumar Bharti, 31, Phool Bagh Colony, Meerut calling upon to furnish return of 'income of the AOP consisting of Shri Vijay Kumar Goel,, Shri S.P. Garg and you'. This notice is dated 15.2.1988. The return of income was filed on 30.3.1988 wherein income of Rs. 16,340/- was disclosed. Assessment was completed by the A...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Kumar Singh and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)88
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following four questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the assessment year 1986-87 for opinion to this Court:'(i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in cancelling the order passed by the CIT Under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, when the facts of the case clearly indicated that the A.O. had not applied his mind to certain aspects of the case and when had merely set aside the assessment and a conclusive finding on the issues involved was yet to be given by the Assessing Officer?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law justified in holding that the interest free advances received by the assessee firm from M/S Jai Prakash Associated (P) Ltd. could not be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961?...
Saghir Ahmed Son of Abdul Bashir Vs. Smt. Sakina Begam Wife of Saghir ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC255
K.N. Ojha, J.1. Instant revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.1.1985 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in Criminal Revision No. 76 of 1985, Smt. Shakina Begum v. Saghir Ahmad, whereby the revision was allowed and the revisionist husband, Saghir Ahmad was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance to Smt. Shakina Begum at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to her daughter. By the impugned order dated 21.1.1985 the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision by setting aside the order dated 18.12.1984 whereby the learned 3rd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Pilibhit, dismissed the Case bearing No. 79 of 1984, Smt. Shakina Begum v. Saghir Ahmad, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. police station Neoria, district Pilibhit.2. Heard Sri Roshan Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent end have gone through the record.3. The fact of the case as revealed from the r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Singhal Industrial Corporation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)690
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred 10 as 'Act') relating to the assessment years 1982-83 for opinion to this Court:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in disapproving the Assessing Officer's action in making addition of Rs. 89,000/- should be Rs. 89,500/- on account of income from undisclosed sources within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that no separate addition under the head 'income from undisclosed sources' within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is called for?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The assessee/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee'') is a partnership firm and was deriving income from the business of manufacture/assembly of...
Jagmohan Son of Datai, Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ALD(Cri)4
M.C. Jain, J.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment dated 12.12.2000 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1996 and they are being decided by this common judgment. There were five accused-Jagmohan and his brother Nohar as also three sons of Nohar, namely, Ganga, Jamuna and Shiv Prasad. Nohar died during the pendency of the trial and as such the remaining four faced the trial. The trial court convicted all of them under Section 147 I.P.C. with a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default of payment of fine one month's further simple imprisonment has to be undergone); seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 2500/- (in default of payment of fine six months' additional simple imprisonment has to be undergone) and under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. with six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- (one...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Bharti and Vijay Kumar Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)260
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') relating to the asst. yr. 1986-87 for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) who held that the AO was not having jurisdiction to make an assessment on AOP of two members ?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The assessing authority issued notice under Section 148 of the Act to Sri Ashok Kumar Bharti, Sri Vijay Kumar Goel and Sri S.P. Garg, members of AOP, through Shri Ashok Kumar Bharti, 31, Phool Bagh Colony, Meerut, calling upon to furnish return of 'income of the AOP consisting of Shri Vijay Kumar Goel, Shri S.P. Garg and you'. This notice is dt. 15th Feb., 1988. The return of income was filed on 30th March, 1988 wherein income of Rs. 16,340 was disclosed. Assessment was completed by the AO on 30th March, 1988 at an i...
Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)AWC3858G
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below relying upon the amended provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes that the time limit for filing written statement cannot be extended beyond ninety days from the date of service of the summons, has rejected the written statement filed by the petitioner.3. In view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., 2005 (2) AWC 1490 (SC) : 2005 AIR SCW 2346, and the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25816 of 2005, Masroor Ali v. Court of In-charge District Judge, Kanpar Nagar and Ors., decided on 19.5.2005, whereby the order of the courts below refusing to accept the written statement beyond ninety days is quashed and this Court has directed the courts below to accept the written statement beyond ninety days in case the petitioner's case is covered by th...
Bharat Auto Center Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(All)289; [2006]282ITR366(All)
1. Present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dt. 14th Aug., 2003, for the asst. yr. 1997-98 by which the Tribunal has rejected the appeal of the appellant filed against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 21st Jan., 2002. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. The question for consideration is whether the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal are justified in refusing to condone the delay and rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation.2. The assessment order dt. 27th March, 2000, passed by the ITO, Ghazipur for the asst. yr. 1997-98 was served upon the appellant on 18th March, 2000 and, therefore, the limitation for filing the appeal was upto 17th April, 2000, while the appeal was filed on 29th Sept., 2000 beyond time by 158 days. The appellant filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In the application, it was explained that since in the case lega...
Mahabir Prasad Vindhyachal Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)607
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for the asst. yr. 1977-78 for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the affidavits and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the assessee ?'2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The applicant/assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is an HUF and was engaged in the Sarrafa business and also had income from property and agriculture. The IT Department conducted a search at the business and residential premises on 2nd/3rd Sept., 1976.In the search conducted by the Department, considerable ornaments and bullion were found both at the shop as well as at the residence, some of which were also seized. Besides the above, the officers also seized a cash book in the search. The CIT(A) referred to it as a Kachchi cash book. The reading by the Tribuna...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »