Allahabad Court September 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.
Kashi Ram Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, District and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995All234
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Hardoia, passed ,on 12-1-1993 by which Election Petition filed by opposite party No. 2 under Section 12C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was allowed and the election of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of village Sankh, Pargana and tehsil Sandila, district Hardoi was set aside.2. On an application filed by Sri Vyas Deo Tripathi, opposite party No. 2 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hardoi who exercises powers of the Prescribed Authority fo deciding Election Petitions under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, made an order for recounting of the votes cast in the election which was the subject-matter of the election petition in which the petitioner was declared elected. The said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer ordering recounting of votes was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. That writ petition wasdismissed by t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kavita Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR206(All); [1995]78TAXMAN212(All)
ORDER--Finding of fact not challenged.Ratio :The finding of Tribunal on the basis of material on record that the order of CIT under s. 263 was not justified in law, having not been challenged by revenue, the said question cannot be referred.Held :Question is whether the CIT has rightly exercised his power in remanding the case back to the assessing authority with a direction to make the assessment de novo after examining the genuineness of the gifts. The Tribunal has recorded a finding against the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 that `the ld. CIT himself has not made any enquiry to come to the conclusion that gifts were not genuine. He neither had anything before him documentary nor oral statement of somebody, which could prove that some of the gifts were not genuine. A mere report of DDI (Inv.) suggesting that some of the gifts may be non-genuine and that too not confronted to the assessee, was not sufficient to conclude that the gifts were not genuine'. The question in this case...
Super Time Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT495(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 20-7-1994. passed by the Collector (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad whereby he declined to waive the condition of pre-deposit of the disputed amount under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri U.N. Sharma, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Union of India.3. As agreed by the learned counsel before the parties the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage without calling for a counter-affidavit.4. The proviso to Section 35F says that where in any particular case the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Collector (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it ...
Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR150(All); [1995]78TAXMAN216(All)
A.P. Misra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel for the Revenue. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated March 31, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for waiver of penalty imposed under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(b) of the Act. The contention is that, on the facts and circumstances, the penalty should have been waived by the Income-tax Commissioner. 3. Before one is entitled to waiver of penalty under this section, he must satisfy the following :(a) The assessee must, prior to the issuance of notice to him under Section 139(2) of the Act, voluntarily and in good faith have made full and true disclosure of his income ; (b) he should co-operate in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income ; and (c) he has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of tax in consequence of an order passed under the Income-tax Act in respect of the...
Hari Mohan Vs. V.K. Mittal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3186
ORDERS.N. Saxena, J.1. This contempt petition arises from the writ petition No. 2918 (ss)/91 (sic), Hari Mohan v. State of U. P. . which was instituted by the petitioner in Lucknow Bench of this High Court. The petitioner prayed for punishment of the opposite parties as they allegedly had flouted the orders dated 26-11-1992,10-9-1993, and 22-9-1993 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this High Court in the aforesaid writ petition. This Court, therefore, enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how this contempt petition could be maintained here at Allahabad when no part of cause of action for the same had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been transferred to Allahabad as Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department and that part of cause of action for the said contempt petition thus, had arisen within the jurisdiction of Allahabad and that the contempt petition, therefor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›