Allahabad Court April 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.
Shamsul Qamar and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2427
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. Shamsul Qamar and others have applied for the transfer of S.T. No. 245 of 1989 (State v. Shamsul Qamar and Ors.) pending the court of Sessions Judge, Buland-shahr to some other nearby Sessions Division.2. Smt. Farmoodan Begum, who died in Delhi, had made an oral will prior to her death that her dead body was to be cremated in the family grave-yard in village Sakhini P.S. Jahangirabad district Bulandshahr. The dead body of Smt. Farmoodan Begum was brought to village Sakhini for burial on 1-2-1989. Because the family members of Smt. Farmoodan Begum had enmity with the party of Shamsul Qamar, a report was made at P.S. Jahangirabad with the request to provide Police protection to the family members of Smt. Farmoodan Begum at the time of burial of the dead body. Consequently, some Police personnel were deputed and had accompanied the dead body. While preparation for burial was being made in family grave-yard in village Sakhini, the case of the prosecution is, the accus...
U.P. Financial Corporation Vs. Goodman Drug House (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All177
ORDERN. N. Mithal, J.1. U. P. Financial Corporation being aggrieved by an order passed by the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad restraining it from realising its money otherwise than by proceeding under Sec. 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act have come up to this Court.2. Briefly stated facts are that under an agreement between the parties a sum of Rs. 6,51,000/- was advanced by way of loan to the plaintiff on 30-6-83. Subsequently in 1984 an additional loan of Rs. 1,23,000/- was also advanced to the plaintiff. It is admitted to the plaintiff that the entire amount has not been repaid as per the agreement on account of some financial stringency. A notice ofdemand to pay up the arrears within ten days was sent to the plaintiff on 28-9-89 that in the event of failure to pay the amount the Corporation will take proceeding under Sec. 29 of the Act. According to the plaint the defendant Corporation wanted to take possession over the plaintiff's industrial concern forcibly without any right; hen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR232(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following two questions of law arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the deletion of half share each taken from Jitendra Kumar Vidya Devi and Surendra Kumar Vidya Devi from the assessee's income (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in ignoring the fact that the Department had not accepted the group partitions effected in the Hindu undivided family of Shyam Lal and the matter was sub judice before the High Court ?' 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned questions of law to this court for its opinion. 3. This application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Foundry
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR555(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we are not satisfied that any statable question of law arises in this case. In the assessment year 1984-85 which is in dispute, the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 10,003 with the following remarks :'Balance-sheet tallies at Rs. 10,42,319. Liabilities of Rs. 8,312 and Rs. 1,961 are shown as U. P. sales tax and Central sales tax, the same shall be added under Section 43B.'2. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who deleted the addition. The order passed by the appellate authority was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. As the reference under Section 256 was refused, the present application has been filed.3. The appellate authority has found that the amount in dispute represented the sales tax realisation of the last month of the previous year relevant to the assessment year in dispute. Under the provisions of the sales tax law, the amount was payable in the next month and the same was actually pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jitendra Kumar Vidya Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR247(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following two questions of law arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing adoption of the status as that of Hindu undivided family ? (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is not contrary to the findings recorded in the case of Shri Shyam Lal (I. T. A. No. 2485 (Delhi) 79 dated 16-1-1960) of which this group is an off-shoot and Shri Brahma Swarup and Sons in I. T. A. Nos. 1112 and 1113 (Delhi) 1977-78 dated 24-11-1978 holding that members of the group would hold the property falling to their shares as tenants-in-common ?' 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C'), Delhi, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned questions of law to this court for its opinion.3. This application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs....
Devakar Vs. B.P. Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1748
ORDERRavi S. Dhavan, J.1. The petitioner husband and his wife Meera Jain have a marital discord and this is the subject matter of a divorce proceeding pending before the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The proceedings are stretching and do not conclude. On this aspect in writ petition No. 10576 of 1989 : Devakr v. 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, was disposed of and this court made observations thus:--'However, without entering into the merits and without inviting a counter-affidavit from the opposite party we dispose of this petition by directing that the suit may be disposed of within four months from the date a copy of this order is produced'.Sd. R.M.S.Sd. R.P.S.3-5-1989'2. Since then the suit appears to be dragging on and has given an occasion to the husband petitioner to move this contempt petition to seek issue of notice to the 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar that he is violating the terms of this order as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chaubey and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR309(All)
R.K. Gulati, J. 1. This application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is filed at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad, Four questions have been proposed in this application. The sum and substance of these questions is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by which he deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act imposed on the assessee. The concurrent findings recorded by the appellate authorities are that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty as the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing its return of income within the time specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. It is these findings which have been challenged by the Revenue in these proceedings.2. We have heard Sri Bharatji AGRAWAL, senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, and Sri S.B.L. Srivastava, appearing for the assessee.3. For the Revenue,...
Lml Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1990LC361(Allahabad); 1990(50)ELT507(All)
1. Vide an order dated 27-11-1989 the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi had re-affirmed the appellate order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur against the same and passed a definite order that L.M.L. Ltd. (Scooter Division), the petitioner before us, would be entitled to claim refund on the basis of redetermined assessable value, for the period of six months preceding Sept. 24,1984 in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and also to claim refund with effect from 4-10-1985 on differential excess duty paid by them as a result of treating the sales to the authorised representatives in parts other than U.P. as wholesale sales. Inspite of the said clear order of the Tribunal the respondents before us did not comply with the said order. However when the petitioner, feeling aggrieved, moved the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur the respondents contested the plea and the Assistant Collector ...
Smt. Munni Devi and Others Vs. the Xth Additional District and Session ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All169
ORDER(1) The petitioners are the tenants of house No. 23/259, Jeoni Mandi, Agra. (2) The landlords filed suit No. 482 of 1969 in the Court of Judge Small Causes for arrears of rent and for ejectment. The case set up was that the rent up to 31-1-1967 was due to be paid by the petitioner. Their tenancy was terminated by means of the notice dated 9-2-1967.(3) The petitioners denied the plaint allegations. It was stated that they were not in default. The entire rent was paid but the receipts were not issued to them. The frame of the suit was also defective since all the landlords have not joined the suit.(4) The suit was decreed by the trial Courtagainst which the petitioners filed a revision which too was dismissed on 26-7-1989.(5) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.(6) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since in this case the title of the landlord was disputed, the Judge Small Causes ceased to...
Badri Prasad Kedar Nath Saraf Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR69(All)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following question does arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'1. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the addition made to the closing stock valuation and reject the method of valuation adopted by the assessee of average cost instead of market value ?'We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court.2. As regards the second question proposed in this application under Section 256(2) of the Act, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit question for reference and, therefore, the prayer for issuing a mandamus to the Tribunal directing it to make a reference on the second question is rejected. Itmay be observed that, in the application under Section 256(1), the assessee had raised some other question' also which have been given up in the appli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›