Allahabad Court October 1990 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. University Printers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR206(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?'2. The relevant facts are the following :The assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1969-70, it filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 14,860. The Income-tax Officer, however, assessed its total income at Rs. 47,981. He did so on the ground that certain cash credits were not properly explained by the assessee. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under Section 271(1)(c). Since the minimum penalty imposable exceeded the sum of Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2). The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,000 which the assessee questioned by way of an appeal ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR190(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Appellate Tribunal to hold that purchase of securities was necessary and customary for the purposes of the assessee's business ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the loss on sale of securities amounting to Rs. 16,000 was incidental to the assessee's business of manufacturing sugar ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of loss of Rs. 16,000 treating it to be a revenue loss incidental to the carrying on of the assessee's business ?2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar in Uttar Pradesh. While computing its incom...
Syed Akbar Ali Vs. Session Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC626
K. Narayan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the orders dated 20.3.1980 and 30.10.1981 recorded by the Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class, Sambhal and the Sessions Judge, Moradabad respectively awarding maintenance of Rs. 100/- p.m. under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.2. Admittedly, the petitioner, namely, Syed Akbar Ali was married to Smt. Rashida Khatoon some wherein 1975. There were some differences, and according to the wife, she was also divorced by the husband. This fact of divorce was denied by the husband and there have been findings against him in the judgments of the Courts below. Ultimately, after considering the entire materials on record, the learned Magistrate has passed an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. and the same was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in the revision.3. Before me the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that no finding was recorded by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge about the earning c...
Rangi Lal and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ916
B.P. Singh, J.1. Rangi Lal and others have appealed against their conviction recorded by Sri. K.P. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 150 of 1978 State v. Rangi Lal and 8 others, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 304/149 I.P.C. P. S. Jahanabad, District Fatehpur.2. The case of the prosecution was as follows:-- Vidya Bishal, P.W.1, the first informant, is a resident of village Deori Buzurg and his family members have got about 30 bighas land in Bhanbhaura Har which lies towards north of the village. In the evening of 26th July, 1977 some cattle belonging to residents of village Sahimalpur had grazed in the field of Vidya Bishal's family members. The crop was damaged and thereafter Vidya Bishal's nephew, Srinarain, had gone to village Sahimalpur in the evening to lodge protest with the owners of the cattle. Rangi Lal and others, who are residents of village Sahimalpur and owners of the cattle, resented the protest made by Srinarain.3. On 27-7-1977 Vidya Bishal, Srinar...
Anil Kumar Sheel Vs. the Principal, Madan Mohan Malviya Engg. College, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All120; [1991(62)FLR298]; (1990)3UPLBEC1504
ORDER1. Whether the Administrative or Qasi-Judicial authorities are obliged to observe principles of natural justice and whether an alternative remedy available under a statute is an absolute bar for exercising writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution are short but significant questions that fall for consideration in the present petition filed by a student of third year Civil Engineering for the session 1988-89, in Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College Gorakhpur (for short the College) which was governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act 1971 (for short the Act) and its statutes.2. The factual matrix of the case is that a FIR (Annexure-2) was lodged by one Sushil Kumar Verma, a student of Engineering college against the petitioner and 2 other students for an offence u/S. 377/504, I.P.C. (the unnatural offence and criminal tress pass). That case appears to be under investigation but the Dean of the Students of the College taking it to be a misconduct and...
Ram NaraIn Rao and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All330
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petitionhas been filed for quashing the notifications dated 9-5-1990 issued by the State of U.P. u/S. 4(1) and S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from dispossessing the petitioners from plots Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 24 situate in village Jaliipur Parao, Pargana Ralhupur, district Varanasi, in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications. The petitioners have impleaded the State of U.P., the Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, and Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as Ganna Sansthan) as respondents 1 to 3 respectively to the writ petition.2. A notification u/sub-sec. (1) of S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in U.P. Gazette on April 28,1990. This was followed by a notification u/S. 6 of the Act which was published on May IS, 1990. Since the language of the notifications will be material for the decision of the controversy in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kedar Nath Finishing Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(All)216; [1991]188ITR158(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. We have heard counsel for Revenue. The assessee is not represented.2. The question referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1901, reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,057 being part of the sale price of fertilizer kept by the assessee with itself ?'The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year concerned is 1975-76. During the relevant previous year, sale price of fertilizers wasincreased by the Central Government. However, the U. P. Government issued a clarification that the enhanced price does not apply to existing stock. The district authorities, accordingly, called upon the assessee to deposit the excess amount realised in a post office in the name of the District Magistrate. However, out of the total excess amount of Rs. 22,057, the assessee deposited only a sum of Rs. 7,000 in the account and kept the remaining amount o...
Smt. Suraj Kumari Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All75
ORDER1. By means of the present writpetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur, dated 1st September, 1989, rejecting the petitioner's application under 0.9. R. 13 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree passed in Original Suit No. 3 of 1985 and also the order of the District Judge, Mirzapur, dismissing the petitioner's Appeal No. 104 of 1989, Smt. Suraj Kumari v. Para Devi,, vide its order dated 28th November, 1989. The saidappeal was directed against the order of Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur, dated 1st September, 1989, referred to above. The main contention of the petitioner's counsel, in the present petition is that both the courts below have committed manifest error of law in taking a view that the application for setting aside the compromise decree dated 22nd May 1985 at the instance of the petitioner who was not a party in Original suit No. 3 of 19...
Assistant Controller of Estate Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD407(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the Controller of Estate Duty (Appeals) dated 27-4-1988. The Revenue has taken up the following grounds of appeal:- 1. (i) That the Ld. CED(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in allowing the deduction in respect of wealth-tax liabilities of Rs. 4,54,907and Rs. 21,91,585 in the status of Individual and HUF respectively. (ii) That the Ld. CED(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in accepting the partial partition of the HUF and thereby directing the ACED to exclude the assets of the HUF added in the estate of the deceased because as per provisions of Section 171(9) of IT Act, 1961, no partial partition made on or after 31-12-1978 will be recognised. (iii) That the Ld. CED(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in allowing the outstanding liability of Rs. 4,57,448 payable to M/s J.K. Hosiery Factory.2. The brief facts are that Sir Padampat Singhania died on 18-11-1979, leaving behind certain estates. Du...
Km. Renu Tyagi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All126; (1991)1UPLBEC71
ORDER1. Km. Renu Tyagi, Roll No. 182691 along with 30 more students whose roll numbers have been given below their names in Writ Petition No. 20899 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the first petition) and Arun Kumar, Roll No. 1139851 along with 21 more students whose roll numbers have also been given below their names in Writ Petition No. 22986 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the secondpetition), have filed these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners of the High School Examination, 1989. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners to appear in the Intermediate Examination, 1990-91 as they are studying in the 2nd year of the Intermediate.2. As the points involved for consideration in both these petitions are similar, hence it is convenient to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.3. In the first writ pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »