Allahabad Court July 1995 Judgments
J.K. Charitable Trust Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(All)114; [1996]222ITR523(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated August 16, 1976, issued by the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1973-74, requiring the assessee-petitioner to file its return of wealth for the said year and the subsequent notices dated January 31, 1978, March 10, 1978, March 11, 1978 and April 15, 1978, issued by the Valuation Officer in connection with the valuation of the assets of the petitioner.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.B. Upadhyaya, and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned standing counsel for the respondents.4. The petitioner is a public religious and charitable trust. Its case is that it is exempt from income-tax by virtue of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also from wealth-tax by virtue of section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act. For the assessment years 19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rampur Industries Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR656(All)
1. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, are heard on the question of admission.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Sri Bharatji Agarwal at the very outset relying upon Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]191ITR656(SC) , submitted that the assessee is not entitled to claim investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, this concession under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act has been wrongly granted in favour of the assessee. On the other hand, learned counsel, Sri Vikram Gulati, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the aforesaid decision has no application to the instant case. The only question involved in the aforementioned case was that whatever investment was incurred in the cold storage was the subject-matter of assessment but in the instant case, the petitioner has installed ice factory for which he is claiming investment allow...
Tag this Judgment!Lajpat Rai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(All)467; [1995]215ITR608(All)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing the authority letter under which the income-tax authorities conducted a search on the premises of petitioner No. 1, Lajpat Rai. The petitioners further pray for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to operate the locker belonging to the petitioners and not to seize or take away the ornaments kept therein. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to return the bill books and other papers seized from petitioner No. 1 and be restrained from making any assessment against petitioner No. 1.2. Petitioner No. 2, Smt. Suman Lata, is the wife of petitioner No. 1, Lajpat Rai. Petitioner No. 3, Smt. Sukho Kunwar, is the mother of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 is his sister. It is alleged that the eldest sister of petitioner No. 1, namely, Smt. Mukul Rani Varshani, was married to Sri Prem Chandra Varshani, who was the managing director of Saraikela Glass Works Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Kanodia Cold Storage Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(All)17; [1995]215ITR369(All); [1995]83TAXMAN460(All)
1. The short point that emerges for consideration in this petition is :'Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by entertaining a revision application arising out of an order passed under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and decide the same on the merits ?'2. The facts, in brief, leading to this petition are as under :The petitioner-firm, Kanodia Cold Storage, 50-A, Tara Kutir Road, Allahabad, at the relevant period was carrying on cold storage business.3. For the assessment year 1977-78, besides tax, interest amounting to Rs. 2,790 was also charged under Section 215 of the Act.4. Against this, the petitioner-firm moved an application under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for waiver. However, his submission for waiver was turned down.5. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner-firm preferred a revision application invoking the provisions of Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Prasad Vs. High Court of Judicature
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1088]; (1996)ILLJ1184All; (1995)2UPLBEC1250
P.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated August 5, 1986, passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner, by two Hpn'ble Judges of this Court, on administrative side, and order of dismissal from service dated September 25, 1984.2. The Petitioner was a permanent class IV employee in Banda Judgeship. He was in employment since 1959. Petitioner was transferred from 'Banda to Karvi in 1981, Since petitioner was an active member of the Staff Union, according to the petitioner, the officers of Banda Judgeship were prejudiced against him. He was charge sheeted, and proceeded with departmental enquiry. During the course of departmental enquiry, petitioner moved an application dated October 14, 1982, praying for an Advocate to assist him. No order was passed on the aforesaid application and on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated September 25, 1984. Appeal preferred against the aforesaid order was also d...
Tag this Judgment!Chhuttan Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ649
G.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. Both these appelas arise out of judgment dated 23-7-79 passed by IIIrd Adi. Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 742 of 77 and 690 of 78. By these judgments, the accused Mullue and Chhuttan have been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' R. I. Accused Ram Charan has been convicted under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' R. I.2. The prosecution case started on the basis of an oral F.I.R., Exhibit Ka I, lodged by Hari Shankar, P.W. 1 at P. S. Bilari on 8-10-76 at 7 P.M.3. He has alleged that he is a resident of village Aparput Tandi. His father died long ago. Thereafter, his mother remarried with Sheo Charan Pandit and he was living along with the mother at the house of the complainant. The real father of complainant had left 28 bighas as of land. Meanwhile the complainant's mother developed illicit relations with the accused Ram Charan. This development was not liked by the complainant. He several times asked his moth...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chadha Vs. Cegat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT280(All)
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 12-8-1994, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby it dismissed an appeal by the present petitioners against the confiscation of six pieces of gold weighing 599.420 grams and of Rs. 1845/- in Indian currency.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents although a counter affidavit had been filed.3. The petitioner No. 1 Gopal Chadha claims to be a dealer in gold and gold ornaments. Petitioner No. 2 Ram Sumer claims to be an employee of petitioner No. 1. On 13-7-1990, the petitioner No. 2 Ram Sumer was apprehended by the officer of the Customs department at about 10.15 P.M. at Gorakhpur bus stand while he was on his way to Allahabad. On his search six pieces of gold were recovered from his langoth. He was also found to be carrying Rs. 1845/- in Indian currency. He was b...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Deo Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR430]; (1996)IIILLJ793All; (1995)3UPLBEC1410
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned termination order dated March 16, 1988 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). I have heard Sri. B.N. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner was appointed temporarily on August 1, 1970 on the post of Agriculture Teacher and joined his post on August 14.1970 in Higher Secondary School, Singli, District Pithoragarh. after having selected by the department. It is also stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that since then the petitioner has been continuously working on the said post with an unblemished record of service. He was thereafter transferred from place to place but was not regularised. It has also been stated in paragraph 6 of the petition that since juniors to the petitioners had been regularised, he made representations in 1985 and 1987 to the Additional Director (Basic) to confirm him, but no action was taken. True copies of; his representations arc Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Pal Singh Vs. the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR911]; (1996)IIILLJ799All; (1995)3UPLBEC1392
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned termination order dated March. 5, 1992 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). I have heard Sri D.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner was appointed on October. 10, 1977 as Panchayat Raj Adhikari and was confirmed on April. 19, 1989. There was some complaint against him and the B.D.O. Shikohabad made a preliminary inquiry and submitted a preliminary report on January 1, 1991 against the petitioner. The petitioner was then charge-sheeted and the same B.D.O. who had submitted the preliminary report was appointed the Inquiry Officer and he submitted the charge-sheet dated October 1, 1991 vide Annexure-1 to this writ petition. In this inquiry the petitioner was found guilty, consequently his service was terminated.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rules of Natural Justice have been violated since the person holding the preliminary inquiry has also h...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1012
ORDERS.C. Jain, J.1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Vehicle No. UMH 9002 (Private Vehicle Matador) allegedly owned by the applicant was seized by the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Varanasi under Section 207(1) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for not having valid documents etc. Thereafter the applicant moved an application before the Magistrate concerned, i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi for release of the said vehicle, but the Magistrate concerned declined to accept the request of the applicant on the plea that under Section 207(2) of the said Act the power has been given for releasing the vehicle seized under Section 207(1) of the Act to transport authority or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf.2. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is the Magistrate who has got power to release the vehicle under the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »