Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S PRAHLAD INDUSTRIES, CIVIL LINE, MORADABAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Prahlad Industries, Civil Line, Moradabad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 297 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 5464 (7 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 12th October, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1990-91.

Assessing authority levied the tax under section 3-F of the Act on the lease rent received by the opposite party at Rs.15 lacs for leasing out the plant and machinery installed and fixed in a factory. It was the claim of the opposite party that the entire factory shed of M/S Prakash Woolen Mills including office, electrical equipments, installed furniture, fixture, telephone and plaint and machinery embedded in the earth were given on lease and, thus, the tax is not leviable on the lease rent because the lease out items were not moveable goods. First appellate authority accepted the plea of the opposite party and deleted the tax. In appeal, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Issue involved is concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of the opposite party itself, Commissioner of Trade Tax Versus S/S Prahlad Industries, Moradabad reported in 1998 UPTC, 1059 relating to the earlier year in which under the similar situation, it has been held that the tax was not leviable under section 3-F of the Act.

Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, the order of the Tribunal is upheld.

In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.07.03.2006.

VS.(297)/99


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.