Allahabad Court July 1994 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moradabad Syates Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR459(All); [1994]77TAXMAN242(All)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel for the assessee.2. The Revenue seeks reference of the following questions of law to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 65,08,000 (assessment year 1981-82), Rs. 73,84,300 (assessment year 1982-83), Rs. 83,95,000 (assessment year 1983-84) and Rs. 6,76,250 (in the assessment year 1985-86) which were made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act on account of profits on undisclosed hundi sales not recorded in the books of account (2) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that these were only accommodation hundis and there were no genuine sales, when, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the onus of proof th...
Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3400
Palok Basu, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed by Balbir Singh and Rampal, appellants against the judgment and order dated 28-3-1978 passed by TV Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 415 of 1976 where by appellant No. 1 Balbir stands convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and appellant No. 2 Rampal stands convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and the sentence awarded to both of them is imprisonment for life.2. The charge against the appellant Balbir was that on 5-8-1976 at about 5 p.m. on the Patri of Bamba Baroda in village Ganeshpur, police station Khair, Aligarh he. committed the murder of Jagmal by intentionally causing his death by firing from his licensed gun and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. Likewise, the charge against Rampal was that he having accompanied co-accuased appellant Balbir in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Jagmal Singh and he thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34, IP...
Manoj Lal and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income-tax Department an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(All)241; [1994]210ITR842(All); [1994]76TAXMAN347(All)
ORDER UNDER S. 269UD--Condition precedent--Opportunity of being heard.Facts :The petitioner applied for no objection certificate in Form No. 37-I, but the appropriate authority passed order under s. 269UD without giving an opportunity of hearing therefore. Held :No opportunity was granted before passing the impugned orders, hence the orders are unsustainable. In the present case, an ad interim stay order is operating till date and, therefore, the supplementary direction issued by the Supreme Court also equally applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners.Conclusion :Opportunity to show cause must be afforded to intending purchaser and seller of property before making an order of compulsory purchase of the property.--Vide C. B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 78. Application :Also to current assessment years.Citation :Income Tax Act 1961 s.269...
Liladhar Ramsukh Das Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR441(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. The assessee-applicant seeks reference of the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in following its own order for the assessment year 1983-84 regarding commission paid to Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna when the facts in this year were materially different as clearly shown from the evidence on record 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not even considering the additional material placed before it regarding commission paid to Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna in the form of comparative sale charts, agreement, credit and debit notes, copies of accounts, etc., which was not available in the preceding year the order of which was erroneously followed by the Tribunal 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the fact that the Tribunal has not even mentioned the add...
Kalyan Singh M.L.A. and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1191
Girdhar Malviya, J.1. In all these writ petitions it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioners have since been released. As a matter of fact a plea has been taken by the respondents in all the counter affidavits, as also through their counsel Shri Jagdish Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate, that since in all these petitions the petitioners have been released the writ petitions have become infructuous.2. However, learned counsel for the petitioners have time and again submitted that they want to argue these writ petitions on the point of relief for grant of compensation. This Bench made it clear to the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the writ petitions at this stage were not being contested by the respondents, this Bench was not at all inclined to the writ petitions on the question whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation or not, more so as the petitioners could al...
Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: 1994LC227(Allahabad); 1994(73)ELT266(All)
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel appearing or the petitioners and Shri S.M.A. Kazmi learned Additional Standing Counsel representing the respondents.2. These two petitions raise and involve identical controversy and, as such, they are being disposed of by common judgment.3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1045 of 1983 pertains to the demand of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4,05,450.20 relating to the period between 1st April, 1976 and 28th April, 1976. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1983 relates to the demand of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 3,98,541.61 for the period between 1st April, 1977 and 4th May, 1977.4. Notices under the erstwhile Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereinafter called the Rules, were issued to the petitioners raising the aforesaid demands. The petitioners objected to the demand and claimed exemption on the strength of the Government of India notification dated 1st March, 1973 issued in exercise of the powers under er...
Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society and ors. Vs. Damodar Prasad Gaur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR622]; (1996)ILLJ35All; (1995)1UPLBEC155
S.S. Sodhi, C.J.1. When an effective alternative remedy is available, the long established and well settled rule of the Court, in its writ jurisdiction is relegating the petitioner to such alternative remedy, and more so where the relief claimed is founded upon disputed questions of fact stands out in bold relief here - by its breach.2. On July 11, 1989, when the respondent held the post of Co- operative Supervisor, the impugned order was passed holding him guilty of having embezzled a sum of over Rs. 6 lakhs odd, and as a consequence he was removed from service and the said sum was directed to be recovered from him. It is this order which he sought to challenge in writ proceedings.3. There was admittedly the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order available to the respondent under Regulation 70 of the Co-operative Federal Authority Business Regulations, 1976 framed by the U.P. Co-operative Union. Before the learned Single Judge an objection was raised to the ...
Vakil Chand JaIn Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR399]; (1995)IILLJ112All; (1995)1UPLBEC74
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The face of this writ petition hinges on the reply to three questions, which have been posed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly as to whether the order of punishment is vitiated for the reason that the charges contained in the charge-sheet admittedly served to the petitioner, do not make out a case of dismissal inasmuch as the regulations under which the charges were framed, are invalid, secondly, that the charges are not based upon the imputation of the charges and the material sought to be adduced against the delinquent. Thirdly, that as to whether the action of the disciplinary authority while dismissing the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges by the Inquiry Officer, is bad for the reason that the delinquent was not given an opportunity to show cause.2. With this prelude it is necessary to examine the factual matrix as set out in the petition. The petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working ...
Bal Ram @ Balle Vs. Rasool Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC118
M.P. Kenia, J.1. There is absolutely no merit in this First Appeal From Order, the facts leading up to the same being that on the day in question, the claimant was sitting on a bridge at about 7.30 in the morning on Deograh-Lalitpur road when truck No. MPI 3364 found by the Trial Court to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, went and dashed against that bridge with the result that the claimant got caught between the truck and the bridge and sustained injuries on his right leg which was fractured at two places below the knee and had also suffered injuries in other parts of the body like the waist, the head, etc. The claimant filed this case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant being the driver of the truck in question on the day when the aforesaid incident took place. The matter was fixed for filing his written statement on a particular day when the written statement was not filed. It came up for hearing on 8th of May, 1992 when the orders w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swarup Vegetable Products
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR716(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue and also learned counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue seeks the following questions to be referred by this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to hold that it was a clear liability and thus allowable as deduction ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law to hold that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Kedarnath Jute . v. CIT : [1971]82ITR363(SC) is applicable in the present case ?' 2. The Tribunal rejected the reference application for the same under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to this application are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar, vegetable oils, alcohol and confectionery goods through its different units. During the course of ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »