Allahabad Court January 1996 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. Soulier Jean Louis
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR220(All)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring us to direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the salary received by the assessee is taxable in India ?'2. We have carefully gone through the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, a foreign employee, claimed exemption in regard to his salary on two counts : (a) that the case of the assessee was covered under section 10(6)(vi) of the Act ; and (b) that the case of the assessee was covered under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France.3. So far as ground (a) is concerned, no clear finding was recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, it can be said that the case of the assessee under Section 10(6)(vi) of the Income-tax Act was not accepted.4. On ground (b), the Tribunal has accepted the case of the assessee subject to ascertaining the fact...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surendra Mohan Seth
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR88(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Allahabad Bench) referred the following question to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on or after April 1, 1976, and in that view cancelling the penally under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after March 31, 1976 ?'2. The only question for consideration is whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was competent to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on or after April 1, 1976, when the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, became operative.3. In CIT v. Dhadi Sahu : [1993]199ITR610(SC) , the Supreme Court held that if the reference made before April 1, 1976, remained pending thereafter before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that should not be returned without any final order on the ground of lack of j...
Dr. (Mrs.) Reeta Bagchi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ611
ORDERA.N. Gupta, J.1. If not all the petitioners at least petitioners No. 1 and 2 are running nursing home at Lucknow by the name of Shishu Mangal Bal Chikitsalaya. Smt. Reshma Devi, opposite party No. 2 appears to be an unfortunate mother who got admitted her ailing tender son aged about a few days only for treatment in the said nursing home. The said nurshing home treated the child for sometime and thereafter expressed its helplessness and asked the mother to take away the child to the K. G. Medical College, Lucknow where she admitted the child but it ultimately died there on 11-4-1994. The opposite party No. 3 is the grandfather of that child.2. The opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR for negligence against the petitioners under Section 304-A IPC which was investigated by the Investigation Officer. After investigation, a chargesheet has been furnished and the petitioners have appeared therein. Now they have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the contention that the ch...
Rajendra and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2700
G. Malaviya, J.1. Rajendraalias Buddhu was found guilty under Sections 302 and 308, Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his father Tilak Singh by administering poison. How-ever since the trial Court found him to be a child within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Children Act, consequently instead of giving any sentence he was given benefit of Section 29 of the Children Act and was ordered to be sent to an approved school for a period of two years by the III rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Ses-sionsTrial No. 598 of 1977. By the samejudgment and order Kalawati was held guilty forthe offence under Section 302 read with Section, 34 Indian Penal Code as also for the offence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and was alwarded life sentence and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. Both her sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against their conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed.2. Accor...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. M/S. Em and Em Associates
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All318
ORDERR.B. MEHROTRA, J. 1. EM and EMAssociates, a partnership firm filed a Suit No.762/87 under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act impleading Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradun as opposite patty in the suit and claimed relief that the dispute arising out of an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and opposite party be referred to the Arbitrator as per Clause 25 of the agreement. In the application, which has been termed as a suit before the Court, the plaintiff-petitioner contended that in response to a tender enquiry floated by the respondent for interior work in Management Block in IDT, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun, the petitioner submitted its tender, which was accepted by the respondent vide their letter dated 24-6-1985. In pursuance of the acceptance of tender a formal agreement bearing No. 11/85-86/IDT dated 2-7-1985 was entered into between the parties. It was contended that the dispute has arisen out of the aforesaid agreement regarding payment of bills of the pl...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Garg a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: 1996ACJ948; AIR1996All332
ORDERR.B. Mehrotra, J. 1. Shri Vinod Kumar Gargon 4-5-1993 was travelling by bus No. RJ-14-P-1758 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation from Agra to Bharatpur.When the bus reached military area Shahganj railway crossing, it did not stop before the speed-breaker resulting in a situation where front wheel of the bus passed over the speed breaker and the bus came down with a big jolt, as a result of which the exit gate of the bus opened and Vinod Kumar Garg, who was sitting near the window, fell down from the bus. Sri Vinod Kumar Garg received grievous head injuries and he immediately died after 25 minutes. The accident had taken place at 11. A.M. and Vinod Kumar Garg expired at 11.25 A.M.2. The dependents of the deceased, Sri Vinod Kumar Garg, namely, Smi. Shanti Devi Garg, the nother of the deceased and Smt. Sarita Garg, the widow of the deceased as well as three minor childern of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was p...
Salim Son of Yaseen Vs. First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1996All342
ORDER1. Leave is granted on the prayer of Shri B. D. Mandhyan. Learned counsel for the petitioner to correct the cause, title so as to convert the petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Facts as emerging from this case are that the respondent No. 3 as plaintiff instituted a suit being suit No. 310 of 1990 in the Court of learned Munsif (City) Saharanpur, on 29th September, 1990 against the Respondent No. 4 and 5 and the petitioner herein as defendant No. 1,2 & 3 respectively for injunction restraining the defendant No. I & 2 (respondent No. 4 & 5) from transfering their share in the suit property and delivering possession to the defendant No. 3 (petitioner herein) without effecting any partition in respect of the family dwelling house being suit property therein. Admittedly plaintiff and the defendant No. I & 2 are co-sharers in respect of the family dwelling house being the suit property and the defendant No. 3 is a stranger.3. In connection with the said ...
Bhagwan Dass Hari Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR423(All)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1989-90 requiring us to ask the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 60,000 completed in the basis of the alleged difference found in the middle of accounting year ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 60,000 worked out on the basis of inventory of stocks prepared in the course of operation under Section 133A beyond the purview of powers in illegal manner ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal for sustaining the addition of Rs. 60,000 made on account of alleged sales outside account books in respect of purchases and stock recorded in the books?'2. The f...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissione ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1028; [1996(73)FLR1541]; (1996)IILLJ448All
D.K. Seth, J.1. These two writ petitions arise out of two proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 arising out of the same accident, in which one Safdar Miyan and Insar Ahmed had died. The case as made out in Writ Petition No. 37551 of 1992 is as follows:2. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 as claimants have made an application under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which was registered as Case No. 21/W.C.A./91 against Kafeel Ahmad and others claiming compensation of Rs. 85,428 together with interest for the death of Safdar Miyan on March 1, 1991 while employed under the said Kafeel Ahmad, owner of Mini Bus No. U.P. 25-5058.3. While the case made out in Writ Petition No. 37550/92 was that the respondents No. 3 and 4 had lodged a claim under Section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which was registered as case No. 22/W.C.A./91 against Kafeel Ahmad, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,06,257 on account of death of Nihal Beg on March 7, 1991 ...
Maya Agro Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1146]; (1998)IIILLJ966All
B.M. Lal and R.M. Mahajan, JJ.1. By this petition, petitioner prays for an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned demand note dated October 9, 1995 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).2. The case of petitioner M/s. Maya Agro Products Ltd., 269/B, Mutthiganj, Allahabad is that it is a public limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business of manufacturing Vanaspati and refined oil at the factory situated at Sarai Sayeed Pargana Harwa,Tehsil and Distt Fatehpur. However, its registered office is located at 281, Mutthiganj, Allahabad and its administrative office establishment is at 269/B, Mutthiganj, Allahabad but at both these places i .e. 281 and 269/B, Mutthiganj, Allahabad, only administrative work is done and not sale or business is transacted, as such both these places are commercial establishments where accounting, personnel management and planning works are being carried out, therefore, these two places do not com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »