Allahabad Court May 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.
Radehy and Another Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1990All175
ORDER1. Petitioners filed a suit under Sec. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in 1983 in the Court of the S.D.M., Sadabad, district Mathura for a declaration that they have perfected their title to the land in dispute by adverse possession. The suit was decreed by order dated 2-6-1984. The respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Agra, which was allowed on 9-1-1985. The petitioners, thereafter filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed on 16-1-1986 and a review application filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 8-1-1988. Petitioners have now filed this writ petition before this Court against the orders, passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.2. The sole point argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the report of the Naib Tahsildar is admissible in evidence u...
Vivek NaraIn and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR57(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. We are unable to see any substance in this writ petition. It is directed against the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, in proceedings under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the Government and an award was passed on September 13, 1984. The award specifically sets out the amount of compensation, solatium and interest. Penal interest was levied under Section 139(8) and also under Section 217 of the Act for the period April 1, 1983 onwards. The petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) for reduction of the interest levied under Section 217 and also under Section 139(8) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner reduced the interest on both counts for the period April 1, 1981 to September 30, 1984, but refused to waive the interest for the period subsequent to September 30, 1984. The first order of assessment relates to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. There is another order ...
Pahulal Ved Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR589(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. These are two cross-applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), one filed by the assessee and the other by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur. We shall deal with these applications separately.2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76 and arises out of penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The following two questions have been proposed in the application filed by the assessee :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not cancelling the penalty order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that the penalty orders were illegal and not according to law ? (2) Whether, in view of the fact that the Income-tax Officer had levied a penalty below the minimum limit and as such the order of the Income-t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR407(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This application under Section 256(2) is filed at the instance of the Revenue. The following three questions have been raised in this application :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest on loan of Rs. 20 lakhs was allowable ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 17,726 in the concrete unit was allowable ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that the addition of Rs. 1,93,370 made by the Income-tax Officer in valuing the closing stock of barbed wire was uncalled for ?' 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, question No. 1 alone is a question of law and the remaining two questions are concluded by findings of fact and do not give rise to any question of law.3. The brief facts relevant to the fir...
Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ127All
S.D. Agarwala, J.1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed under Rule 24 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 which provides that women shall not be eligible for appointment to the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court. The actual order is as follows:-'In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 275 of the Government of India Act, 1935 the Governor of the United Provinces is pleased to order that women shall not be eligible for appointment to the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Oudh, Lucknow.'2. On April 5, 1990 an advertisement was issued by the District Judge, Gorakhpur inviting applications to fill up Class III posts in the judgeship. On the same day on April 5, 1990 the District Judge, Gorakhpur h...
Dinesh Rai Vs. District Inspector of Schools and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ123All
M.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R. Misra appearing for the State.2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the G.O. dated September 23, 1981 (Annexure 1) and to give suitable job to him to the post for which he is found suitable.3. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was an employee of Town Inter College, Mohamadabad Gohna, District Mau. Unfortunately, he died on January 30, 1987. After his death, the petitioner made an application on August 22, 1987 to District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh for appointment as a class three employee. He possessed the minimum qualification to be appointed as such. However, the application referred to above remained pending. Nothing has been done by the respondents.4. On December 16, 1984 an interim mandamus was issued by this Court directing the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh/Mau either to ...
Phoola Devi Vs. Supt., Central Jail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR70]; (1992)ILLJ125All; (1990)3UPLBEC1786
R.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Female Jail Warder on January 31, 1976 in District Jail, Banda and has continued to serve in that capacity upto 1981. In October, 1981 the entire staff of Male Jail Warders in the State of U.P. including in District Jail, Banda went on strike. It is alleged by the petitioner that Female Jail Warders were forced by the Male Warders to join the strike. The Government of U.P. on account of strike terminated the services of the entire staff of Male and Female Warders in all the districts. After the strike was over, necessary instructions were issued to reinstate all the Jail Warders, whose services were terminated on account of the strike. The Inspector General of Police (Prison), U.P., Lucknow vide his order dated January 10, 1982 directed that all Male and Female Jail Warders be reinstated forthwith. It appears that inspite of the direction issued by the Government, the petitioner was not reinstated and as such, she made representation to the...
Kamal Singh Vs. Resham Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1114
ORDERPalok Basu, J. 1. A first Information Report was lodged by one Kamal Singh relating to the murder of his father namely Ranbir Singh. It was alleged that two unknown accused had shot dead the father of the informant for which the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 Resham Singh, Hardeo Singh, Dalvir Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Jaswant Singh had conspired. A chargesheet was filed, whereafter the matter was committed to the Court of Session. The five opposite parties and two other co-accused namely Megh Pal Singh and Man Singh were thus forwarded to the Court of Session along with the case which became the subject matter of Sessions Trial No. 319 of 1988 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned order dated 21-3-1989, the Sessions Judge directed that the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 be discharged at the stage of 227, Cr. P.C. while other two accused Man Singh and Meghpal Singh were directed to be tried on suitable charge.2. The present revision has been filed by Kamal Singh inf...
Delta Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR383(All)
1. By this application filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to direct the Tribunal to state the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the ad hoc addition of Rs. 75,000 towards the trading results without determining any basis or manner of computation of the true income, profits and gains of the assessee-company ? 2. Whether the Tribunal, being the final fact-finding body, was justified in ignoring the comparable case of Chandra Engineering Industries, Meerut, in whose case gross profit rate varying between 18 per cent. and 19 per cent. had been applied/accepted and whose file was also with the same Assessing Officer by holding that merely pointing out the comparable case to the' Income-tax Officer by the assessee was not enough thereby not following the Supreme Court judgment reported in CIT v. K.Y. Pilliah and Sons :...
Saru Smelting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR621(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act'), the assessee requires that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi, be directed to refer the following four questions for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is permissible under law to link together two sets of transactions, namely, the transaction of providing free accommodation to the directors and the transaction of letting out its own accommodation to other persons instead of considering and deciding the legality, reasonability and necessity separately ? 2. Whether, under law, the disallowance of Rs. 2,900 was legally correct on the ground that the assessee-company had provided alternaterented accommodation to its directors and has let out its own accommodation to other persons for rent and derived income under the head 'Property' ' 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, any disallowance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »