Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat allahabad Page 21 of about 208 results (0.139 seconds)

Feb 27 1982 (TRI)

Kailash Kumar Dixit (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)1ITD956(All.)

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee arise out of the separate orders, both dated 25-6-1981 of the AAC, Special Range, Kanpur.2. The assessee-HUF, by means of an application dated 31-3-1978, required the ITO to recognise the partial partition of the HUF which was said to have been effected on 30-6-1976 (i.e., first day of the previous year under consideration) between its members with reference to an amount of Rs. 2,01,000 out of the fixed deposits of the HUF amounting to Rs. 2,61,000 in the Allahabad Bank, Generalganj, Kanpur.Out of the total value of the 7 fixed deposit receipts amounting to Rs. 2,01,000, the value of one of the fixed deposits to the extent of Rs. 21,000 was set apart to provide for the marriage and other expenses of the minor daughter, Km. Vinita Dixit. The rest of the deposit amounting to Rs. 1,80.000 were divided equally between the karta, his wife and his minor son. The HUF consisted of Shri Kailash Kumar Dixit, the karta, his wife, Smt. Asha Dixjt, his mi...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1982 (TRI)

Surya Prakash Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)1ITD283(All.)

1. These two appeals, both relating to the assessment year 1977-78, one filed by assessee against the order of the Commissioner, under Section 263, and another filed by the revenue against the order of the AAC, revolve round the same facts and are, therefore, for the sake of convenience, disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The assessee is an individual. Here it will be necessary to point out that the assessee was also the karta of his HUF which was a partner in the firms Hanuman Prasad Surya Prakash and Kanhaiya Lal Hanuman Prasad. The assessee's wife Smt. Gita Devi was also a partner in both of these firms. The assessee, in his individual capacity, was, however, a partner in Kanhaiya Lal Hanuman Prasad only. The assessment of the assessee-individual was completed by the ITO by order dated 22-12-1977 on the assessee's share from the firm Kanhaiya Lal Hanuman Prasad and the assessment was, thus, made on a total income of Rs. 37,260.Subsequently, however, the Commissioner was of the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1982 (TRI)

Shri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)2ITD466(All.)

1. Since the above appeals relate to the same assessee and also involve more or less common contentions, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Munna Lal Moti Lal was an HUF of which Shri Moti Lal was the karta.This entity was duly assessed to income-tax up to the assessment year 1967-68 vide GIR No. 711-M. There is no dispute about this fact, which is also proved from a copy of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on 28-11-1967, and a photostat copy of the same appears at page 35 of the paper book submitted by the assessee. Shri Moti Lal died sometime in April 1967. According to the assessee, the business originally carried on by Munna Lal Moti Lal, which was in sarrafa, was later on carried on in the name of Moti Lal Shri Nath. However, there was no change in the status which continued to be the HUF, though its karta now was Shri Nath. . This business was continued up to 31-7-1969 According to the asse...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1982 (TRI)

New Light Tannery Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)1ITD733(All.)

1. The common contention in these appeals relate to the assessee's claim under Section 35B of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The assessee is an exporter. It, among others, claimed the relief under Section 35B on the following expenses incurred by it in connection with the export of its goods :1. Cost of polythene and plastic sheets, steel patti, stencils patti and hessian jute, etc., for packing of goods 34,519 The ITO disallowed the claim of the above items on the ground that they were not covered by any of the sub-clauses of Clause (b) of Section 35B(1).2. The assessee came in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). It was submitted before him that in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Eldee Wire Ropes Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 485, the assessee was entitled to the relief under Section 35B in respect of the above items. It was also submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that similar claim of the assessee had been accepted in the assessment year 1...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1981 (TRI)

Mahabir Rice and Dal Mills Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)1ITD788(All.)

1. The assessee is a firm. The original assessment in this case was made on 17-12-1977. There are six partners in this firm, some of whom are in their individual capacities, while others are representing their respective HUFs. While completing the assessment, the ITO had disallowed, in the aggregate, interest of Rs. 30,556 under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").2. Subsequently, the audit pointed out to the ITO that the disallowable interest under Section 40(b) amounted to a higher figure by Rs. 83,780.In this connection, the audit pointed out to the ITO that although he had added back the sum of Rs. 30,557 paid to the partners in their individual capacity, the additional amount of Rs. 83,780 paid to them as kartas of their respective HUFs was not added. The audit also observed that the prohibition contained in Section 40(b) was absolute and made no distinction between payments by way of interest or salary to a partner as a partner and such payments made to him in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1981 (TRI)

Raj Rana Himmat Singhji Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)1ITD594(All.)

1. In all these appeals the controversy is common, namely, whether or not the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 2(e)(1)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ("the Act") in respect of his house known as "Garhi", situated in Chhoti Sadri.2. The appellant is an ex-Jagirdar of the erstwhile estate of Udaipur.He holds about 72 bighas of land around the township of Bari Sadri. The said lands are under the assessee's self-cultivation which of course is done with the help of labourers. The said house known as "Garhi" is situated in the town which has a municipal committee to look after the administration. The said house is used by the assessee for his own dwelling, for storing grains, for keeping his agricultural implements, tractor, bullocks, etc. While residing in the aforesaid Garhi, the assessee supervises the aforesaid agricultural operations being carried on in his field by hired labourers. The assessee's case is that in view of the aforesaid facts, the aforesaid house shou...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1981 (TRI)

Keshav Shukla Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1982)1ITD556(All.)

1. By this appeal, the assessee challenges the validity of the order under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") passed by the Commissioner in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, holding that the assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 19-12-1977 made by the ITO, Sultanpur, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. The relevant facts bearing on the controversy may be noted : The assessee was the karta of the HUF and was a partner representing his family in Haribhanjan Lal Someshwar Prasad, Sultanpur, up to the assessment year 1975-76. On 1-4-1976, a partial partition amongst the members of the HUF with regard to the investment of the family in the aforesaid firm was effected and the various members of the assessee's family, consisting of himself, his wife and his son were allotted the following shares in the original capital of the family in the said firm :Shri Keshav Shukla 35,898.97Smt. Kalindi Shukla 35,898.97Shri Anil Kumar...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1981 (TRI)

Maqbool Ahmed Lari Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1983)3ITD338(All.)

1. The sole controversy in the present case is whether an addition of Rs. 37,500 to the assessee's returned wealth was justified on the ground that the assessee had earned interest to that extent. The assessee held a fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 8,50,000 against which he had obtained an overdraft of Rs. 6,40,000 from the said bank. Out of it Rs. 3,50,000 were given on loan by him to one Shri P.N. Singh. He derived an income of Rs. 26,250 from him by way of interest, which went to increase the wealth of the assessee correspondingly. The balance amount of loan was kept by the assessee either with himself at home without lending it to anybody or was given over by him to his son without interest. No income, whatsoever, was, admittedly, actually earned on the aforesaid amounts. In the income-tax assessment, the interest paid by the assessee to the bank on such amounts as were kept idle at home or were given to the son without realising any interest from him, were not allowed as legitimate ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //