Allahabad Court March 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.
Trans Asia Carpets Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ673
ORDERJ.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners seek quashing of proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2153 of 1989 pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Pollution Control), Lucknow by this application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. According to the petitioners the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company. It has entered into a technical collaboration with M/s. Besmer Tephic Fabric Martens K.G., a German Company for manufacture of carpets. It became sick in December, 1990 and applied to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The trade affluence from the petitioners' manufacturing unit is being scientifically treated to make it free from pollution and a part of it is used by the land owners and cultivators for agricultural purposes. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 prohibits discharge of trade affluence in the stream. The river Karve is connected only through a U.P.S.I.D.C. drain which also (sic) toxic materials from other neighbouring uni...
Dinesh Kumar Mittal Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR770(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Revenue.This writ petition is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner-assessee. The assessment year concerned is 1984-85. During the previous year relevant to the said assessment year, the assessee purchased a house property. According to the sale deed, the market value for the purpose of stamp duty was shown at Rs. 2,07,500 but the actual consideration was stated to be Rs. 1,50,000. The Income-tax Officer noticed the extent of the built up area as also the rent and opined that the assessee has suppressed the true sale consideration. However, he added only fifty per cent. of the difference, i.e., Rs. 28,750 to the income of the assessee. (The addition of half the difference amount was for the reason that the said house was purchased in two portions, one in the name of the asse...
Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC288; 1991LC174(Allahabad)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard Sri Rishi, Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri AK. Gupta, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government.2. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated 9.9.1980 issued by the Superintendent, Customs, and Central Excise, MOR II Dhampur, District Bijnor, calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why they should not be made liable to pay a duty in a sum of Rs. 23,489.93 under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The petitioner, Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Limited, is engaged in manufacture of sugar. Bagasse is a by-product. The petitioners' case is that a Company by name Alcho-Chem. Limited owned a distillery at Sheohara and that by virtue of the order of the Calcutta High Court dated 19.4.1977 in Company Petition No. 60 of 1977. M/s Alcho-Chem. Limited was merged with the petitioners' company with effect from 1.4.1976. It is, therefore, submitted that the distillery at Sheohara came to be owned by the...
Delhi Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(42)LC592(Allahabad)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. Heard Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Gupta, Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government.2. This writ petition is directed against a notice dated 23.7.1980 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division-II, Ghaziabad calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund claim filed by him should not be rejected for the reasons mentioned in the said notice.3. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of angles, bars and rods, which were, at the relevant time, dutiable under Entry No. 26-AA(I-A) of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act. The petitioner say that during the period 25.9.1968 to 29.9.1973, he cleared goods weighing 2506.068 Metric Tonnes and paid a duty to the tune of Rs. 1,90,159.73 thereon. The petitioner says that the Government had issued an Order under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, exempting the said products from duty vide Government Notification dated 30...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharam Pal Singh.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR769(All)
By this application, the Revenue is asking this court to direct the Tribunal to state the following question :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the onus was on the Department to prove that there was fraud or wilful neglect with regard to a sum of Rs. 23,000 alleged to have been received as gift and in holding further that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable in relation thereto ?'We have seen the order of the Tribunal. Out of the ten donations put forward by the assessee, five are accepted and five are rejected. The Tribunal has said that merely because the evidence in respect of five donations was not accepted or believed, it does not follow that there was gross fraud or wilful neglect, even though this is a case of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. We do not think that a question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as it has recorded a finding that there was no pro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mool Chand Sharbati Devi Hospital Trust ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR693(All)
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and also having perused the order of the Tribunal and the terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee-trust and P. M. T. Society, we are of the opinion that a question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal.The Revenue is asking for referring for two questions, namely :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust which has registered under section 12A and exempt under section 80G in earlier year but, if the expenditure is not on charitable objects in the subsequent years, could be granted exemption under section 11 ?'In our opinion, however, it is enough if question No. 1 is referred. Q...
Brij Bihari Mishra and Others Vs. Vijai Shanker Mishra and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All236
ORDERN.N. Mithal, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order rejecting an application for revocation of a succession certificate granted by the Court below.2. The succession certificate was granted to respondent No. I on 21st Apr., 1989 in respect of certain debts and securities of the deceased Sudama Misra. The appellants claim that the said Sudama Misra had executed a Will in their favour on 20th Nov., 1982 and as such they ought to have been implead-ed as parties. Since the appellants were not made parties in the said proceedings the succession certificate granted to the respondent was liable to be revoked.3. The parties are related to the deceased as will be obvious from the following pedigree: Ramyad MisraSudama Misra Kanhaiya Mishra Beni Madho Vijai Shanker Misra Brij Behari Kamal Nain Rajee Nain 4. It is undisputed that Sudama was possessed of moveable and immoveable properties part of which are situate in the district of Ballia while immoveable properties are situate in Kal...
State of U.P. Vs. Phota and Etc. Etc.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1991All229
ORDERN. N. Mithal, J.1. These four appeals have been filed by the State of U.P. u/S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with S. 96, C.P.C.2. All these appeals are against a common judgment of the court below by which four references u/S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, which had been consolidated, were disposed of raising the compensation for the acquired land to Rs. 30/- per sq. yard.3. The appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation along with requisite application u/ S. 5 Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. All these appeals are beyond time by more than 240 days. These are not the solitary cases where an appeal by the State Government has been filed with such long delay. In fact, if the experience we have had in this regard lately is any index, it would be an exception if an appeal is filed by the State within limitation for, as a rule, most of the appeals are accompanied by applications u/S. 5. So is the case with many of the public or local bodies.4. The affidavits that...
Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: [1993]78CompCas507(All); 1991CriLJ3010
N.L. Ganguly, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed against the order passed by the Magistrate affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision refusing to summon the accused person in a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Amendment Act No. 66 of the 1988.2. The dispute arises out of a business transaction. A post-dated cheque for November 25, 1989, was issued by the accused/opposite party on October 15, 1,989, which was to be presented in the bank on November 25, 1989. The said cheque was presented for encashment on February 19, 1990, in the bank : It was returned by the bank with letter dated February 27, 1990, with the slip 'refer to drawer' as there was insufficient amount in the account of the accused/opposite party. The cheque was dishonoured and not encashed. Being aggrieved by such dishonouring of the cheque, the criminal complaint afor...
Tarun Bhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)100CTR(All)179; [1992]193ITR543(All)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY C. J. - Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that conversion of the assessees proprietary business into a partnership amounted to a transfer of the assets of the proprietary business to the partnership and, in that view, holding that the development rebate on plant and machinery of the proprietary business transferred to the partnership within eight years was wrongly allowed within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which could be withdrawn under section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee is an individual. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment years 1965-66, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, he was carrying on the business of printing and publication as proprietary business up to May 31, 1972. On th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »