Allahabad Court February 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.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) Dist. Ghaziabad Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1991All68
ORDERK.C. Agarwal, J.1. On 30th April, 1976, the State of U.P. made a notification u/S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act for acquisition of land covered by this appeal, situate in village Chhalers Bangar No. 1, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad, proposing to acquire 589 Bigha 6 biswa 14 biswansis of land for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Ghaziabad, for planned development of industries. This was followed by a Notification u/S. 6 dated 1-5-1976. The possession of the land was taken on 21-7-1976.2. Out of the land acquired, the respondent Ram Bal had 9 bigha 18 Biswa 10 Biswansis. He preferred his claim before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who gave award No. 3 on 28-3-1977. He allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,200/- per bigha, which was calculated at the circle rate of 2.56. For the other land, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 7210.94 per bigha. Thus, in this way, compensation was allowed to Ram Bal at two different rates for di...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheo Prasad Singhal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR305(All)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax, we are of the opinion that the following questions of law arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any legal basis for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 1,21,139 as a claim together with Rs. 1,24,051 received by the assessee in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration did not constitute income in the assessee's hands which could be subjected to tax (2) Whether the amount under dispute became the income of the assessee and taxable in his hands, on the basis of the accounting followed by him, the moment the assessee deposited the same in F. D. R. and thereby became the real owner of the money ?' 3. We, therefore, direct the Income...
Dau Dayal Goyal and Another Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR397(All)
The petitioner seek a direction from this court restraining opposite parties from arresting them for realisation of income tax dues against them or the firm, Goyal Industries, Sultanganj Agra. It is claimed that even though petitioners have no assets, opposite parties are trying to recover the amount by arresting the petitioners. We do not think that it is necessary for us to decide at this stage any of the controversies raised by the petitioner as, in our opinion there is ample safeguard under rule 73 of the Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed only after he is satisfied about the various conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2). In view of these safeguards, we dispose of this petition by directing that the petitioner shall not be arrested or detained unless the Recovery Officer proceeds in accordance with rule 73 and records reasons as contemplated therein.The petition is disposed of accordingly....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Taj Printers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR384(All); [1990]48TAXMAN112(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The following questions of law have been raised :'(1) Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax merely on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and under law, he was not empowered to invoke Section 263 in this case, by placing reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of I.P. Srivastava and Sons v. CIT : [1978]111ITR326(All) , which does not apply to the facts of the present case, because of wide divergence of facts between that case and this case ? (2) Whether, in law and the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by theCommissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Metals Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR428(All)
R.M. Sahai, J. 1. In these two applications under Section 256(2) of theIncome-tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the following question of law has been raised : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the income derived by the assessee-company should be considered as agricultural income ?'2. It has been found by the Tribunal that the assessee-company enteredinto an agreement with Bhumidhars of land for not only filling and cleaning the land but also sowing, growing and protecting the crops. Andthereafter the major share of the profit was to be of the company. On thesefacts, the Tribunal held, after taking into account the totality of the circumstances, that the income derived by the company was agriculturalincome. 3. It has been urged that since the land belonged to Bhumidhars, the income arising out of it would belong to them and not to the assessee. The submission appears to be devoid of an...
Ram Lal Yadav and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1013
B.N. Katju, Ag. C.J.1. These are six applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying that the first information report and the investigation on its basis be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to release the goods seized in favour of the applicants and the opposite parties be also directed not to arrest the applicants in pursuance of the first information report during the pendency of the application. The learned single Judge who heard these applications was of the view that the answers given by the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Gaur v. State of U.P. 1988 All WC 828 to the questions referred to it with respect to the power of this Court to interfere with the investigation by the police did not appear to be in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council.2. The questions referred to the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Gaur v. State of U.P. 1988 All WC 828 (supra) and the answers given with respect to them are as follows: Question No. 1: ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›