Allahabad Court October 1989 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. Doon Jewellers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR13(All); [1990]48TAXMAN277(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', has referredthe following question for the opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to make two separate assessments for the two periods on the basis of the two returns filed by the assessee ?'2. Brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid question are these : The respondent, Messrs. Doon Jewellers, a partnership firm (for short 'the assessee') for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 claimed two separate assessments on the basis of two returns filed by it, one for the period from April 1, 1980, to June 30, 1980, and the other for the period from July 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981. The assessee based its claim relying on the provisi...
Man Raj Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ782
H.C. Mital, J.1. Manraj and Gorakhnath have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to life imprisonment passed by Sri S. N. Lal, II Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh on 28-9-1978.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused had suspicion that Phoolchand, brother of Manraj, was arrested in a dacoity case at the instance of Balram, deceased. On 13-8-1977, Balram had gone to Shahganj district Jaunpur and on his way back from the market when he reached near a pond in the Siwan of village Chulpura. he was ambushed by Manraj and Gorakhnath, Manraj pressed his throat and Gorakhnath threw him down by his waist and thereafter both of them threw the deceased, Balram, in the pond. According to P.W. 1 Accheyraj, brother of the deceased, while he was in his field he heard the cry of his brother and he along with others went towards that side and witnessed the occurrence. Accheraj brought out the dead body from the pond ...
NaraIn (In Jail) Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1610
H.C. Mital, J.1. Narain has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence Under Section 302, 201 and 295A, IPC to life imprisonment, seven years' R.I. and three years' R.I. respectively passed by Sri N. N. Sharma, the then District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 13th March 1978.2. The facts of the case according to the first information report (Ex. Ka-1) submitted at police station Sambhal District Moradabad at 7 a.m. are that at 5-30 a.m. the informant, Akbar Ali (P.W. 1) had gone to offer prayer at the Jama Masjid as usual he had to remain standing outside the main door as the door was closed. There he met Ashfaq Hussain (P.W. 4), Ismail and other residents of the Mohalla who had also gone to offer prayers and when the door did not open they tried to get it opened and called the Mulla. When no response came from inside then one of them went up the roof and jumped inside and opened the door and then they all went inside. They saw about seven persons, five or six of them ...
irfan Ali Khan Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990All78; (1990)1UPLBEC248
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, Ag. C.J.1. Doubting the correctness of the decision given in election petition No. 1 of 1985* Ram Prakash Tripathi v. Smt. Sheela Dixit, a learned single judge has referred the following questions of law for decision by a larger bench:--'(1) Whether substantial compliance of any mandatory provision of the law, especially of sub-section (3) of Sec. 81 of the Representation of the People Act shall be sufficient, or whether there should be literal compliance in order to save dismissal of the election petition under Sec. 86(1)? (2) Whether it is necessary for compliance of the provisions of Sec. 81(3) of the Act to mention the words attested true copy above the signature of the election petitioner on each copy or whether mere signature or signature with the words 'the copy' will be complete compliance of the provisions of the law?'2. In pursuance of the said reference, this bench has been constituted. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents raised a pr...
Smt. Nasreen Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1318
A.P. Misra, J.1. Petitioners Smt. Nasreen Siddiqui and Km. Anju Verma have filed separate writ petitions for quashing the F. I. dated 18th July, 1989 (Ann. 1 to the writ petition) and also for a writ of mandamus declaring that the acting and modelling work of the petitioner is not of obscene or of such nature and on that account the respondent police Authorities cannot interfere with their acting and modelling work.2. According to the petitioners they are Artists and the undertake work of acting, modelling etc. on contract basis and they work for M/s. V.V. Movies situate at 24, Strechey Road, Allahabad and the proprietor is Sri N. B. Montrose. In the night of 17th July, 1989, when the petitioners had gone back from M/s. V.V. Movies, the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and their subordinates falsely implicated the petitioners in case Crime No. 484 of 1989 under Section 292, IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad and got them arrested from their house. However, it is not in dispute that b...
Ganesh Tobacco Company Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(45)ELT218(All)
ORDER1. Ganesh Tobacco Company, 127/217-A, Juhi Bara Devi, Kanpur, is a manufacturer of chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco, after being manufactured, is packed in pudiyas and thereafter further packed and sealed in cartons and are kept in gunny bags. The petitioner, which is a manufacturer of tobacco, submitted a price list showing gross price of the tobacco as packed, (including the cost of the packing material), and claimed the benefit of concessional assessment at the rate of 15 per cent in terms of Notification No. 35/79, on the plea that the value of the branded chewing tobacco did not exceed Rs. 10/- per kilogram.2. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, allowed the petitioners plea for calculation of value of the chewing tobacco for the purposes of Notification No. 35/79 on the basis of gross value divided by the gross weight. Against the aforesaid order in appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Kanpur. The appeal was allowed by the Co...
Kapri International (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(27)ECC14
K.C.Agrawal, A.C.J.1.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s Kapir International (Pvt.) Ltd., New Delhi for quashing the show cause notice dated 14.10.1985, order dated 18.1.1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and the order of the CEGAT dated 22.7.1985.2. M/s.-Kapri International (Pvt.)Ltd. were licensed for manufacturing of excisable goods. They received processed fabrics from M/s DIOR International Private Ltd. a sister concern of the petitioner, on payment of Central Excise Duty. Such fabrics used to be converted into various other items namely, pillow covers, bed sheets, bed covers, table cloth, etc., falling under T.I. 68. Cotton double bed sheets, cotton single bed sheets, cotton top covers and cotton table linen, etc., were also manufactured by the petitioner company. The petitioner submitted a classification list dated 4.4.1984 desiring that the classification of pillow covers and Rajai covers be done under T.I. 68 a...
Gopi Krishna Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC412; 1990LC599(Allahabad); 1992(61)ELT223(All)
ORDER1. Having heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar counsel appearing for the Union of India, we are of opinion that there are two alternatives before the petitioner at the present. The first is to move an application for recalling order before the appellate authority on the ground that he could not appear due to reasons beyond his control. Every authority has ancillary and incidental power to recall an order, if it is satisfied that the absence was for the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. Such an application has not been moved. The petitioner may, if so advised, move now before the appellate authority.2. The other alternative is to file an appeal under Section 129A of the Excise Act. Should be Customs Act - Ed.3. For what we have stated above, we do not consider it a fit case for interference.4. The writ petition is rejected....
Beni Ram Mool Chand and anr. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR652(All)
K.C. Agarwal, Actg. C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Beni Ram Mool Chand and another for a mandamus for directing the Tax Recovery Officer, Agra, to decide the applications dated January10, 1979, and September 16, 1979, for refund and adjustment of the amount mentioned therein towards tax recovery from the petitioners-firm.2. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the filing of the application has not been denied. It has further not been controverted as alleged in the writ petition that the said application is still pending decision. The Tax Recovery Officer, Agra, respondent No. 1 was obliged in law to decide the application and to pass an order thereon. Sinceit has not been done, we issue a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the applications of the petitioners within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the above observations, the petition stands ...
Shyam Jewellers and anr. Vs. Chief Commissioner (Administration) and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: [1992]196ITR243(All)
S.H.A. Raza J.1. M/s. Shyam Jewellers and its proprietor have filed these writ petitions claiming various reliefs against the Income-tax Department and the action taken by it which, according to the petitioner,is against propriety and legality and which has caused huge loss and is the result of mala fide and calculated action.2. The first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 6218 of 1987) is against the action to seal off the petitioner's shop and the notice which has been pasted over the shop. The petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction for quashing the order contained in annexure No. 2 to the writ petition and have further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the first information report (annexure No. 1). In the second Writ Petition No. 22 of 1988, the original relief was for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the opposite parties to restore the articles, etc., to the petitioners, which were seized and to declare the sealing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »