Allahabad Court December 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.
Major Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Vith Additional Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2357
ORDERR.B. Mehrotra, J.1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the II Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi, dated 8th of March, 1989 and the order of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi, dated 19th January, 1990, dismissing the petitioner's revision filed against the order of the II Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi allowing the application of Smt. Geeta Singh, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. It is not disputed in the present case that Smt. Geeta Singh was a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner married Smt. Geeta Singh on 22-11-1981. Thereafter Smt. Geeta Singh stayed with the petitioner at Sultanpur and lived there for sometime and then returned to her parents house at Varanasi. She again went to petitioner's house at Mhow (Madhya Pradesh), where the petitioner was posted as a Captain and lived with him for few months.3. The case of Smt. Geeta Singh, the wife of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahavir Prasad Jawahar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR271(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. The Tribunal has stated 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 justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1966-67. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in jewellery and also carrying on business as pawnbrokers and money-lenders. It filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 20,405. The assessment was, however, completed on an income of Rs. 88,222. Two amounts were included in the income of the assessee, namely Rs. 15,000 on account of cash credit in the name of one Sri Prem Chand Vaish and Rs. 40,000 on account of cash credit in the name of Sri Ram Gopal Vaish. The Explanation of the assessee with respect to these two cash credit entries was rejected and the same treated as income of the assessee. This was confirmed by the Tribunal also.3. Proceedings ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR38(All)
B.P. Jeenvan Reddy, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Revenue. In its application under Section 256(1), the Revenue had asked the Tribunal to refer the following three questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that weighted deduction under Section 35B is admissible on total expenditure of Rs. 6,42,036 when the assessee itself has claimed such deduction on total expenditure of Rs. 6,33,699 only ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming weighted deduction under Section 35B on rent paid by the assessee in India ?3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction under Section 35B equal to the proportion of sales to export sales ?'2. The Tribunal referred questions Nos. 1 and 2 but declined to refer question No. 3. This application is, therefore, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alankar Bottling Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR799(All)
1. Having heard counsel for the Revenue, and the assessee, we are of the opinion that the three questions mentioned herein below do arise from the order of the Tribunal, as contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to state the said questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The income-tax application is, accordingly, allowed :'1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in directing in the original order that the loss on account of depreciation be carried forward and set-off in subsequent years ? 2. Whether, in the face of the specific provisions of law contained in Section 32(2) and Section 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the issue whether unabsorbed dep...
Chinta Mani Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1662
ORDERG.P. Mathur, J.1. One Shiva Devi, daughter of Ram Charan, gave a written application to the S.S.P., Allahabad, alleging that at about 6 p.m. on 20-5-1987 the applicant Chinta Mani Tripathi placed a gun on her chest and threatened to shoot her and thereafter forcibly committed rape on her. Some other girls who were accompanying the informant ran away from the spot after the applicant had threatened to shoot the informant. These girls informed the mother of the informant at her house who proposed for the spot. On the way applicant Chintamani Tripathi met her and also assaulted her. It was further alleged that after the informent returned to her house the applicant Chintamani used to sit at her door with a gun and did not permit her nor any member of her family to go out and that at every time someone from the side of the applicant blocked the way. On 4-6-1987 the informant's father sent an information to the District Magistrate and the S.S.P. Allahabad but no steps were taken. The i...
Mohd. Harun Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1083
ORDERD.P.S. Chauhan, J.1. By means of this petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner, Mohammad Harun, has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur dated 30-9-1988 in Criminal Case No. 87 of 1986 (Annexure 1 to the petition).2. The petition was admitted by this Court 23-12-1988 and learned Additional Government Advocate wanted time to ascertain the facts. This Court further ordered that :--'It appears that the Magistrate has without making due enquiry as to who was guilty for releasing the applicant from jail without his undergoing the complete sentence or remission of any part of the sentence, has passed the impugned order. Under the circumstance, the operation of the order dated 30-9-1988 is stayed meanwhile.'3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 87 of 1986, Under Section 379/411, IPC., P.S. G.R.P., Jaunpur, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, vide his order dated 23-8-1977 and w...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Narottam Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR260(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has stated the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee's interest in the firm, M/s. Sheetalaya Cold Storage, was exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. This question is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this court in CWT v. Nisha Gupta [1981] UPTC 440. It has been held that cold storage is an industrial undertaking within the; meaning of Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act.3. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
Automobile Financing Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR702(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Having heard counsel for the assessee andthe Revenue, we are of the opinion that a question of law does arise fromthe order of the Tribunal. It is, however, sufficient to refer question No. 1of the four questions sought by the assessee. The other three questions aremerely argumentative in nature and pertain to the very aspect involved inquestion No. 1.2. Accordingly, the I. T. A. is allowed in part. The Tribunal shall state 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taw in holding that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was limited by the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while dealing with the appeal against the order, of the Income-tax Officer passed independently under Section 143(3) of the aforesaid Act ?'...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.B. Multanimal Modi and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR730(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-taxAct, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the followingquestion for the opinion of the court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in holding that the entire gross dividend of Rs. 16,781and not the net dividend after giving deductions under Sections 80L and 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was deductible from the total income of,the assessee in computing the chargeable profits in accordance with, Clause(viii) of Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act,1964 ?'2. It is stated by counsel for the Revenue as well as counsel for the assessee that this question has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 20. The question is, accordingly, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of t...
Ajai Kumar Mittal Vs. Vice-chancellor, Roorkee University, Roorkee and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991All177; [1991(63)FLR291]; (1992)IILLJ634All; (1991)1UPLBEC132
ORDER1. There was a scuffie on 28-4-1990 in the cinema hall (Hanger) of the Roorke University (hereinafter referred to as the University) between the petitioner, a of 2nd year B.E. (Civil) of the University on the one hand and Salil Yadav and Brij Pal Singh on the other, which resulted in injuries to both student the sides. Both the sides submitted reports of the incident to the University authorities. On 30-4-1990 the Vice-Chan-cellor constituted an inquiry committee to inquire into the incident and pending decision of the inquiry petitioner was suspended from attending classes with immediate effect. The Vice-Chancellor however, by his order dt. 2-5-1990, passed on the representation of the petitioner's father, allowed the petitioner to appear in the spring semister examination, 1989-90 pending decision of the inquiry committee with the observation that the petitioner is to appear before the inquiry committee as and when called without the pretext of being busy in the preparation of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »