Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) on various grounds.Hearing of this appeal has been fixed on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dt. 16th March,1999.2. In the grounds of appeal enclosed along with the memorandum of appeal the assessee has listed as many as 9 grounds but at the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel Shri S. K. Garg, withdrew Ground No. 3.1 and 3.4 which are dismissed as withdrawn.In these grounds the assessee has objected to the validity of the notice dt. 12th Dec., 1996, issued as required by the provisions of s.158BC of the Act.3.1. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Addl.standing counsel.3.2. The counsel for the assessee first of all submitted that the notice required to be served upon the assessee as per the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2000)75ITD183(All.)
1. In this appeal, against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Kanpur, dated 28-11-1997, the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period, completed under the provisions of Chapter XIVB of the Income-tax Act. The block period is from 1-4-1994 to 28-11-1996.2. This appeal was heard on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated 23-7-1999, has directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal by 15th September, 1999.3. In the grounds of appeal, initially, the assessee took as many as 46 grounds. As many of these grounds were argumentative in nature, an objection was filed on behalf of the Department on 19-4-1999 alleging that these grounds being in the nature of written arguments, either should not be allowed, or in the alternative, the assessee should not be allowed to make arguments, simultaneously.4. The appellant moved an application for admitting additional grounds.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2000)73ITD49(All.)
1. This is a 1st appeal by the assessee under section 253(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brief), against the order dated 30th of September, 1997 rendered by the Ld.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Allahabad, under section 158-BC/143(3) of the Act for the block period 1-4-86 to 14-9-96.2. The first ground which has been taken by the assessee and which is in the nature of a serious preliminary ground challenging the very jurisdiction of the assessing officer in making the assessment is proposed to be disposed of firstly, runs as under : "Because the search operation cannot be said to have been validly initiated on 14-9-96 in the case of the appellant, as there existed no material (prior to the authorisation) which could lead to the formation of belief that his case fell in any of the 3 categories mentioned in Section 132(1) of the Act and consequently the block assessment order passed in pursuance of such proceedings is wholly i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2000)68TTJ(All)516
ORDERI.S. Verma J.M.This is an appeal by the assessee against block assessment order dated 30-9-1997, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Kanpur as a result of search operation simultaneously carried out at the business premises of the assessee-company and also at the residential premises of its directors which commenced at 8.30 AM on 3-9-1996, and concluded on the same date at 6.15 PM (as per the Panchnama, copy of which has been placed before us). In terms of the said order the undisclosed income was determined at Rs. 2,37,56,400 which got modified in terms of 3 separate orders dated 25-8-1998, 15-9-1998, and 15-9-1998, under section 154, at a figure of Rs. 2,43,77,990 which resulted into a demand of Rs. 1,57,53,794 including surcharge also. The assessee had filed three separate appeals against the three subsequent orders (referred to above) also being ITA No. 1192, 1193 & 1194 (A11)/1998 which have already been dismissed by us on the short ground that the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against block assessment order dt.30th September, 1997, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-2, Kanpur as a result of search operation simultaneously carried out at the business premises of the assessee-company and also at the residential premises of its directors which commenced at 8.30 AM on 3rd September, 1996, and concluded on the same date at 6.15 PM (as per the Panchnama, copy of which has been placed before us). In terms of the said order the undisclosed income was determined at Rs. 2,37,56,400 which got modified in terms of 3 separate orders dt. 25th August, 1998, 15th September, 1998, and 15th September, 1998, under s. 154, at a figure of Rs. 2,43,77,990 which resulted into a demand of Rs. 1,57,53,794 including surcharge also. The assessee had filed three separate appeals against the three subsequent orders (referred to above) also being ITA No. 1192, 1193 & 1194 (All)/1998 which have already been dismissed by us on the short groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2000All205
M. Katju, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my esteemed brother Hon'ble G. P. Mathur, J. and regret my inability to agree with the same. Hence I am giving my own decision.2. The petitioner is an owner of four buses registered as contract carriages with the Regional Transport Authority, Mathura. The petitioner entered into a contract with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A true copy of the agreement is Annexure to the writ petition. Under this contract the petitioner has placed its vehicles at the disposal of the Corporation for carrying the employees of the Corporation from their residence to the office of the Corporation. The petitioner is paid charges not according to the number of passengers but according to the kilometers covered by the vehicle. In lieu of rendering such services the petitioneris paid an amount as provided in Article 31 of the Contract (Page 29 of the writ petition.).3. By means of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the levy of passenger tax under the U.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC750
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. These two writ petitions, the second one having been connected with the first one vide order dated 25.11.1999, were listed before our Bench for the first time on 17.1.2000 in which cross prayers have been made. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. It may be mentioned that on an application filed by the petitioners of the first petition, before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship vide his administrative order dated 11.1.2000 directed to place it before a Bench presided over by one of us. (Binod Kumar Roy, J.). 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44906 of 1999 has been filed by 5 Advocates of the Collectorate Bar, Etawah, for commanding the respondents by issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect to and to quash (i) the Notification dated September 18, 1997 (as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and(ii) the letter dated 22.7.1999 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. In this appeal by the assessee against the order under Section 263 of the IT Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), passed by the CIT, Central Circle, Kanpur on 22nd March, 1999, the assessee has assailed the CIT's order by way of as much as 13 grounds extracted as under: "1. The CIT (Central), Kanpur, has erred against law and facts on record in framing the order dt. 22nd March, 1999, under Section 263 of the IT Act contrary of law and facts on record. 2. The CIT (Central) is in error in passing an order under Section 263 with respect to order of assessment dt. 27th March, 1997, despite the facts that the order of assessment dt. 27th March, 1997, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT while framing the order under Section 263 had failed to take cognizance of the record available at the time of its examination by the learned CIT in accordance with the Section 263, Explanation Clause (b), of the IT Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)74TTJ(All)67
ORDERI.S. Verma, J.M.In this appeal by the assessee against the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), passed by the Commissioner, Central Circle, Kanpur on 22-3-1999, the assessee has assailed the Commissioners order by way of as much as 13 grounds extracted as under :'1. The Commissioner (Central), Kanpur, has erred against law and facts on record in framing the order dated 22-3-1999, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act contrary of law and facts on record.2. The Commissioner (Central) is in error in passing an order under section 263 with respect to order of assessment dated 27-3-1997, despite the facts that the order of assessment dated 27-3-1997, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case.3. The Commissioner while framing the order under section 263 had failed to take cognizance of the record available at the time of its examination by the learned Commissioner in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2239; (2000)3UPLBEC2482
A. K. Yog, J.1. Five persons. Messrs Sanjay Kumar Singh and 4 others (Petitioner Nos. 1 to 51 have filed this petition under Article 226. Constitution of India being aggrieved against the Impugned order dated May 10, 1999. (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), issued by the State Government/Respondent No. 1, cancelling select list/merit list containing their names--said to be prepared under--'Direct Recruitment of Group 'C' Posts (Outside purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules. 1998.' (hereinafter called Rules. 1998.2. Briefly stated, salient facts of the case are that an advertisement was made in daily newspaper (Amar Ujala) dated August 10, 1998--Annexure-1 to the writ petition Inviting applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the proposed examination. Petitioners, along with other candidates, applied against the aforesaid Advertisement and appeared in the written examination held on 13th December,1998. Interview was also held by a Selection Committee (consi...
Tag this Judgment!