Allahabad Court December 1985 Judgments
Dr. (Miss) Chandrakanta Rohatgi Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-26-1985
Reported in: (1986)16ITD243(All.)
1. The assessee is a lady doctor in Kanpur. She was the owner of a property situated at 16/72 Civil Lines, Kanpur. She was running a nursing home and hospital in this building.2. The assessee founded a public charitable trust in the name of 'Chandra-kanta Jawaharlal Public Charitable Trust'. As a settlor she settled a sum of Rs. 1,100 on the trust which amount was transferred to the trustees. The trust had eight trustees. A deed of declaration was also executed by her on 18-4-1976 by which the trust came into existence. The objects of the trust admittedly were charitable in nature. Although the ITO had disputed their nature but his objection was overruled by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, admittedly the objects are charitable in nature. Clause 6 of the above declaration also states that the trustees were to hold trust property wholly for the charitable objects mentioned in the declaration. The trust was also registered by the Commissioner under Section 1 2A of the Income-tax Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Raj Kumar Singh and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1985
Reported in: (1986)16ITD202(All.)
1. The only contention in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to reliefs under Sections 32A, 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a firm. It entered into an agreement with Jaiprakash Associates (P.) Ltd. on 1-4-1979. As per the terms of this agreement, the assessee agreed to assist the above company for the quarrying, blasting, collection and carriage, stacking of boulders and metal at the mine roads required for the construction of mine roads at Kudremukh. Jaiprakash Associates (P.) Ltd. had undertaken a contract job from Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. for the construction of mine roads at Kudremukh. The assessee was to undertake the above job with the help of the following machines : 3. The assessee claimed reliefs Under Sections 32A, 80HH and 80J. The ITO was under the impression that the assessee was a contractor. He observed that the business of a contractor was not an industrial un...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Nath and anr. Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All290
Om Prakash, J.1. General Elections to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly took place in the year 1985 and in 270 Jhunsi Legislative Assembly Constituency election was held on 2-3-1985, in which the respondent was declared as having been elected. The petitioners also submitted their nomination papers for the said Constituency. Whereas, the nomination papers Nos. 15 and 76 of the petitioner No. 1 were rejected, the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 2 were accepted. The contention of the petitioners being that the nomination papers of the petitioner No. 1 were improperly rejected, they have filed this petition with a prayer that the election of the respondent be declared void on the grounds, as contained in Clause (C) of Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act 1951') and that a fresh election for 270 Junsi Assembly Constituency be ordered.2. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 filed two nomination forms Nos. 75 & 76; in one of...
Tag this Judgment!Mayank Kumar JaIn Vs. Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All289
A. Banerji, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Sri Mayank Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) praying that the selection of Sri Sandeep Kumar as the Distributor of L. P. G. (Cooking gas) in Khatauni, district Muzaffarnagar by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited was bad in law and liable to be set aside in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. indicated giving of preference to any applicant who was a resident of town area of Khatauli where the distributorship was to be located. It was stated that the petitioner was a resident of town area of Khatauli and as such he was entitled to be given preference. It was further stated that Sri Sandeep Kumar, respondent No. 3 was not a resident of Khatauli. It was thus contended that on the basis of the above the petitioner was entitled to be appointed and not Sri Sandeep Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Chand Jaiswal Vs. Mata Palat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All312
ORDERA.N. Dikshita, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-76, passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1974 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of Rs. 10335/- with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 2% per annum. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant on the allegation that the defendant-appellant had borrowed Rs. 9000/- from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 1% per month on 15-4-1972 and had executed a pro note in his favour. As the amount was not paid the suit was filed. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. The main allegation of the defendant was that no pro note was ever executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. During the trial of the suit the plaintiff examined himself besides the scribe of the pro note Radhey Shyam and the attesting witness M...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC77(All)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These two revisions are directed at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow, against the judgment dated 19th June, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, relating to assessment year 1974-75 (two parts). Since both the revisions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) issued notice under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the respondent-assessee for not depositing the admitted tax for the quarters ending September and December, 1974, within the time prescribed by law. In reply to the said notice the respondent-assessee contended that it had no intention to evade the tax or not to deposit the admitted tax intentionally but since it was not in a position to deposit the admitted tax because of the financial condition and as such no penalty should be imposed. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Mohan SarIn and anr. Vs. K.P Maintripathi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1324
ORDER1. Surendra Mohan Sarin, who is the sole proprietor of Varanasi Housing Development, has filed this petition for Mandamus directing K. P. Mani Tripathi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Sector, U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Varanasi, to confine the exercise of his powers under Section 91 Cr. P.C. to specific queries pertinent to the charge of corruption against K. P. Srivastava, Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and from resisting to enforce the summons dt. 26-10-1986 sent by him under Section 91 Cr. P.C. by which petitioner 1 has been called upon to produce certain papers and documents mentioned therein. A prayer for quashing of the said summons dt 26-10-1985 has also been made.2. Surendra Mohan Sarin, petitioner 1 established Varanasi Housing Development, petitioner 2, for carrying on the business of construction and development of housing colonies as the sole proprietor. In Varanasi a good deal of vacant land formerly belonging to...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1987All138
N.N. Mithal, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. filed at the instance of Union of India assailing the order of the Court below appointing a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator in proceedings under Section 8(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act.2. This is one of those cases which must cause lot of anguish and concern to every right thinking citizen of this country and reflects not very favourably on the attitude adopted by the Government which proposes to be one of the people, by the people and for the people. We must pause here and ponder whether such a long and arduous series of litigation should really have taken place and should have occupied more than 40 years in the arena of Courts and still showing no sign of culmination dispite so many battles that have been fought during the last four decades.3. The whole thing started when the respondents entered into some contract with the Government way back in the year 1943 which, as usual contained a clau...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Jagdamba Trading Co. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1986All336
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. Through this petition, the petitioners, sought quashing of the order dr. 11-11-1985 passed by the Additional District Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act directing for the sale of rice seized from truck Nos. PBN 4857 and HPG 2204 numbering 280 bags.2. The argument was that the Additional District Magistrate was obliged to give an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order and as no hearing has been given, the same order is invalid.3. For this purpose, we may quote Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, which read as under :--'6-A. (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto a report to this effect shall, without any unreasonable delay, be sent to the Collector of the district in which the seizure is made and the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, inspect or cause to be inspected such essential co...
Tag this Judgment!Avadh NaraIn Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1233
S.K. Mookerji, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by Avadh Narain Lal for quashing the order dated 24-9-1981 passed by Sri J. P. Sharma, Special Judge, Kanpur in Special Trial No. 8 of 1981.2. The facts of the case are that there are two accused, Avadh Narain Lal and Bans Gopal, who have been charge-sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police of Police Station Fazalgang, Kanpur for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, I.P.C. The applicant Avadh Narain was Amin, Sales Tax, admittedly, a public servant, and accused Bans Gopal, a Naib Tehsildar, Collection. A trap was laid in which the above two named accused were apprehended. It is further stated that the accused Avadh Narain Lal was arrested on the spot and accused Bans Gopal surrendered in court on 21-4-1980. The occurrence is dated 2-3-1980. In this case the sanction for the prosecution in respect of Bans Gopal was filed by the prosecution, and is not in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »