Allahabad Court February 1991 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.
Zulfiqar Beg Alias Baby Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2067
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. Sri Zulfiqar Beg has moved this petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 16th January, 1991 passed by the C.J.M. and the order dated 23-1-1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision -- Zulfiqar Beg v. State. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :In Mohalla Chah Sheri, Bijnor, there are two political groups, one group headed by Javed Aftab and the other headed by Abdul Malik Beg alias Hithaura Pahalwan. It is alleged that initially there was no difference between the two groups as all of them were working in the political and social fields of the city. Subsequently a dispute arose and the two groups became antagonistic to each other over some election. In October, 1988 elections for the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Bijnor were held in which Javed Aftab was a candidate against others including one Chaudhary Nepal Singh Arya. The petitioner opposed the candidature of Javed Aftab and supported the riva...
Laxmi Devi JaIn Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR154(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J., - Validity of reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act is challenged in this case. The assessment years concerned herein are 1969-70, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The writ petition was occasioned by a notice issued by the Valuation Officer on June 16, 1980, stating the valuation of the property known as 'Agarwal Building' situated on plots Nos. 4, 5, 6 and Survey No. 419/1, The Mall, Kanpur, has been referred to him by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 16A(1) of the Act determining the fair market value of the assets as on March 31, 1969, to March 31, 1978, except March 31, 1973. The petitioners case is that, on the said date, no reassessment proceedings were pending with respect to any of the four assessment years. It is submitted that she had filed returns for the first two assessment years and that assessment proceedings were completed period to June, 10, 1980, the date on which reference to the Valua...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kay Charan Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(All)266; [1991]190ITR190(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the assessee produces iron and steel (metal) and, therefore, it was entitled for a higher development rebate as provided under Section 33(1)(b) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of mild-steel rods (M. S. rods). (The record before us does not set out or clarify the actual process of manufacturing the said article. All that it shows is that the company manufactures M. S. Rods). For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed development rebate at 25% on extension or addition of plant and machinery made in the previous year relevant to the said assessment year, under Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the said claim ...
Omkar Singh Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All239
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioner has been granted a permanent stage carriage permit on Bareilly-Budaun-Usawan route by the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly by a resolution dated 22-12-1989. This permit could not be issued to the petitioner in view of the orders passed by the Civil Court in various suits, reference of which has been made in a letter of the Secretary R.T.A. dated 18-1-1990, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure II to the writ petition.2. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Civil Court and for a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly and its secretary to issue him permit in pursuance of the order of grant after ignoring the order passed by the Civil Court.3. At the time when this writ petition was filed, this Court passed the following order:--'List this petition for admission on 2nd April, 1990. Until further orders, the operation of the order passed in suit No. ...
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. and ors. (Since Changed to Geep Indust ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: [1996]218ITR638(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions calls in question the constitutional validity of Sub-section (8) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The sub-section was inserted by the Finance Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, and omitted by the Finance Act, 1985, with effect from April 1, 1986.2. Section 40A sets out expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances. For the sake of convenience, we may set out Sub-section (8). It reads :'Where the assessee, being a company (other than a banking company or a financial company), incurs any expenditure by way of interest in respect of any deposit received by it, fifteen per cent. of such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction. Explanation. -- In this sub-section, -- (a) 'banking company' means a company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies and includes any bank or banking institution referred to in Section 51 of that Act;(b) 'deposit' means any deposit of money with, ...
Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR360(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated January 8, 1991 (annexure-5, to writ petition) and another intimation under the same provision dated January 16, 1991 (annexure-8 to the writ petition). In this case, certain disallowances have been effected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner says that it had indeed filed a revised return on January 9, 1991, along with all material which would show that the disallowances made are not proper, Since the petitioner has been made liable for a huge liability without giving any opportunity, we make the following directions, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case:Within two weeks from today, the petitioner shall file an application under Section 154(1)(b) of the income-tax Act raising such contentions or objections as are open to him in law with respect t...
Shyam and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR387(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated October 9, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, transferring the cases of certain persons including the petitionerfrom the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Muzaffarnagar, to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Meerut. The cases of as many as 47 persons were transferred under the said order. The petitioner is mentioned under Serial No. 47. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in auditing work of other asses-sees, A raid was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and certain documents pertaining to the other assessees mentioned in the transfer order were recovered. We are now concerned only with the justifiability of the order transferring the case of the petitioner. It is not alleged that the petitioner is a partner of any of the firms mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 46 in the said transfer order. The reason given for ...
Govind Laxman Solapurkar Vs. Dattatraya Damodar Kelkar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All226
ORDER1. The only point that falls for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the landlord-revision-petitioner and on the basis of that adverse presumption suit of the plaintiff for arrears of rent in pan could be dismissed.2. The trial Court has opined that revision-petitioner has failed to produce the diary in which some entries regarding receipts ofrent were made and the diary was the basis of the suit and had the diary been produced the entries noted therein would have gone against the revision-petitioner. Therefore, an adverse presumption is drawn and the claim for rent in part is rejected on that basis. In this way, the claim for an amount of Rs. 3,400/-was rejected which according to the revision-petitioner was payable to him and for the payment whereof he had given notice to the defendant. As a result of this finding, the trial Court has dismissed the suit for ejectment also.3. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner su...
Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(91)LC28(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This is a petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents (Officers of the Central Excise Department) from demanding or recovering a sum of Rs. 22,52,188.11 on account of duty in respect of goods cleared on 30.10.1989.2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in manufacture of polyester filament yarn, both textured and non-textured, in its factory located at Khatima, district Nainital. In commenced production in March, 1988, Polyester filament yarn manufactured by the petitioner falls under tariff item 5402.20 (other than textured) and 5403.20 (textured). The rates of duty are specified in Notification No. 53 of 1987 dated 1st March, 1987 as amended from time to time. The petitioners say that its factory is located in a 'A' class backward area and that it has been making representations to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance for grant of fiscal concessions particularly in the matter of excise duty. On the basis of s...
Haji Mohd. Wasim and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1299
ORDERBrijesh Kumar, J.1. By means of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22-10-90 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareli in Case No. 1174 of 1990. By means of the said order, the application moved on behalf of the petitioners for exemption of their attendance was rejected and an order was passed for issue of non bailable warrants against the petitioners.2. It appears that F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioner accused-persons under Sections 147, 323, 324, 336, 307 and 426, I.P.C. at Police Station, Nasirabad, District Rae Bareli. It also appears that the accused petitioners were granted bail at the Police Station by Officer in charge. Thereafter it appears that a charge-sheet was submitted. On the date fixed, an, application was moved before the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner, accused-persons, were on bail and were putting in appearance through their counsel. They also prayed for exemption of their p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »