Allahabad Court November 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.
Ram Bhadur Singh Vs. the District Magistrate, Deoria and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All110
ORDER1. On 7-8-90 standing counsel was granted six weeks to file counter -- Affidavit and it was directed that thereafter the petition shall be disposed of finally. No counter-affidavit has been filed. I accordingly proceed to decide this petition on merit.2. The petitioner holds a fire-arm licence. By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has come up to this Court against the order dated 7-7-90 passed by District Magistrate, Deoria suspending his fire-arm licence. By the impugned order his licence has been suspended on the ground that the petitioner is more than 72 years of age and remains often ill and as his son has connection with unsocial elements and, therefore, there is possibility of abuse of the fire-arm. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that the ground on which his fire-arm licence has been suspended, is untenable in law.3. The first ground taken for suspension of licence is that the petitioner is over ...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Dist. Judge, and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All214
ORDER1. Suit filed by Sri Sita Ram for recovery of rent having been decreed, he filed an application for execution to execute the decree. It appears that execution proceedings were stayed by this Court and during the period of stay Sita Ram died. After stay order was vacated respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the widow and two sons of Sita Ram moved an application before the execution court for bringing their names on record in place of Sita Ram so as to enable them to continue the execution proceedings. Petitioner, who was defendant in the suit and is judgment-debtor, filed objection against the aforesaid application of the heirs and legal representatives of Sita Ram. Objection having been rejected, petitioner filed a revision before the learned District Judge, which has also been dismissed by order dated 28-8-1990, It is against these orders of the execution court and the learned District Judge that this writ petition has been filed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impu...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M. Manal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR60(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. These applications are filed under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to refer the following three questions of law for the opinion of this court ;'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Assessing Officer to value the shares on yield basis ignoring the fact that, in these cases, the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules were clearly applicable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the valuation of the shares made as per Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules ? 3. Whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan [1972] 80 ITR 621 which was passed in respect of the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59 when Rule 1D was not in existence (Rule 1D was introduced by the Wealth-tax- (Amendment) Rules, 1967, issued under Notificat...
Ch. Vikrampati Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR675(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. In this case, the following question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of the notional amount of capital gains tax which would have been payable by him if the shares held by him were actually sold on the valuation date ?'2. An identical question in the case of another member of the same family was answered against the assessee in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1979]119ITR258(All) (question No. 2). Following the said judgment, the question referred here is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor and General Sales P. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(All)208; [1991]188ITR544(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following four questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified and had jurisdiction to hold, in the absence of any such plea before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or even in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, that the jeeps constituted the capital asset of the assessee subject to depreciation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the jeeps hired to the Congress party could be said to constitute the capital asset of the assessee subject to depreciation ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses was entitled to deduction of expenses claimed in connection with the hiring of the jeeps ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 9,425, was allowable by way of balancing charge in respect of the assessment year 1968-69...
Shakira Bibi Vs. Abdul Hai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC539
K. Narayan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.1980 of Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad passed in Case No. 672 of 1980 and subsequent revisional order dated 28.11.1981 of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad.2. Before proceeding with the arguments of the learned Counsel, the facts as admitted or shown to have been made out by the judgments of the Courts below may be briefly narrated.3. The petitioner applicant- Scat. Shakira Bibi (hereinafter called the wife) is a legally married wife of Abdul Hai, Opposite party (hereinafter called the husband). They lived together admittedly upto March. 1979, whereafter admittedly the husband left for Delhi to earn his livelihood. According to the applicant she lived with her parents upto November, 1979 and thereafter when things became into lerable, she left her parents place. According to the husband, she was living with him at Delhi till 14.10 1979 when she left him without an...
Kapoor Lal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2159
H.C. Mital, J.1. Kapoor Lal has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence Under Section 302, I.P.C. to life imprisonment passed by Sri R. N. Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, on 11-1-79.2. To appreciate the facts of the case, the following pedigree would be helpful:--BaijnathBirbal Deshraj (deceased) Smt. Suraj Mahipat Smt. Chameli Kapoor LalKali (P.W. 5) (Appellant)3. Thus the appellant Kapoor Lal is real nephew (brother's son) of deceased Deshraj.4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-8-75 Km. Sumitra, daughter of Deshraj, and Shatraghan, brother's son of Smt. Chameli, wife of Mahipat, while playing had quarrelled. Thereupon Smt. Suraj Kali had intervened and in the meantime Smt. Chameli, mother of Kapoor Lal, had also come and exchange of abuses took place in between them. Kapoor Lal also arrived there and started abusing Smt. Suraj Kali. In the meantime at about sun set the deceased also arrived from his field and on seeing Kapoor Lal abusing his ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Syntex Fabrics Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(All)94; [1991]191ITR52(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Five questions are stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They are :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that the promoters intended to float a company from January, 1969 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit or loss of the promoters for the period January 1, 1969, to December 31, 1969, was the profit or loss of the company ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 with a direction to the Income-tax Officer to redo the assessment ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to development rebate and also relief ...
Hotel Ganges Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(All)59; [1991]190ITR660(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the notice issued under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,proposing to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1977-78. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated on July 4, 1974. The land for the assessee hotel was provided by a Hindu undivided family, Sadiram Ganga Prasad, whereas the building was constructed by D.P. Kanaudia, individual. The said Hindu undivided family and the individual had entered into an agreement to form and promote the petitioner-company. By a resolution of the board of directors of the petitioner-assessee, the board approved the total expenditure incurred by D.P. Kanaudia and directed that the same be incorporated in the books of the assessee for the year ended June 30, 1976, by crediting the account of D.P. Kanaudia. In its return for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee disclosed the amount spent on the construction of the building. 2. In the asses...
Pishori Lal Sethi and anr. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR528(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the auction purchasers to set aside the order forfeiting the amount deposited by them towards the sale price. It arises in the following circumstances. One Salig Ram was a defaulter to the Income-tax Department. Against him, recovery proceedings were taken and his property was brought to auction. The auction took place on March 26, 1980. At the said auction, the petitioners were the highest bidders in a sum of Rs. 45,000. As required by Rule 57(1) of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, they deposited 25 per cent. amount on the same day, i.e., a sum of Rs. 11,250. The balance amount had to be paid within 15 days as provided by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57. The petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 13,343 on March 27, 1980. They say that they also deposited a further sum of Rs. 18,407 on April 2, 1980. The total of these three amounts comes to Rs. 43,000 which is two thousand short of the sale amount. Admittedly, the petitioners did not de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »