Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1997]227ITR142(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated June 15, 1982, a copy of which is annexure '7' to the writ petition passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Lucknow, whereby he rejected an application under Section 18B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for waiver of penalties levied under Section 18(1)(a) for delay in the filing of the returns for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The amounts of penalties levied for the three years are Rs. 15,848, Rs. 8,928 and Rs. 3,400, respectively.2. The learned Commissioner rejected the application observing that the assessee was claiming itself to be a Hindu undivided family while the assessment has been completed on protective basis in the status of individual and in a case of this type where even the status of the assessee is in dispute the provision of Section 18B cannot be applied.3. We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1094
ORDERG.S.N. Tripathi, J.1. In this contempt petitation the petitioner has prayed that the contemnors be punished for disobedience of the order dated 21 -12-1995, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3825 of 1995, notice of which was served on 26-12-1995, 11-1-1996 etc.2. Committee of Management of the Cooperative Sugarcane Supply Society Ltd., Bareilly, through its Chairman Sri Mani Raj Singh (petitioner No. 2) filed a Writ Petition No. 37852 of 1995 against four respondents, namely, State of Uttar Pradesh, through Joint Secretary, Sugarcane, U.P., Lucknow (respondent No. 1), Sugarcane Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Sugarcane Society, U.P. Lucknow (respondent No. 2), District Sugarcane Officer/Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Sugarcane Society, Bareilly (respondent No. 3) and J. K. Sugar Industries, Sindhauli Road, Meerganj, Bareilly, through its General Manager (respondent No. 4). The petitioners prayed for the following:(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the natu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2668
J.C. Mishra, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the same accused, Rajendra Singh and Jagat Narain, challenging their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and 7 years R.I. respectively recorded by Sri J.P. Sharma, II Additional Sessions Judge, Banda.2. Informant, Udai Narain Singh (P.W. 5), and Badri Singh (PW 2) arc sons of Shiv Baran Singh. Deceased, Raj Kishor Sri vastava, happens to be a friend of Udai Narain Singh and he had come to chat with Udai Narain Singh, at the time of the incident.3. Dileep Singh, lather of appellant Rajendra Singh and accused Narendra Singh, was murdered. Informant Udai Narain Singh was involved in the murder of Dileep Singh and was facing sessions trial at the time of the incident. The other accused-appellant Jagat Narain was friend of accused Narendra Singh and Rajendra Singh.4. The prosecution case is that on 27-10-79 informant Udai Narain Singh and deceased Raj Kishor Srivastava were sitting at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999ACJ637
M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's husband died in a motor accident and she was awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 by the Lok Adalat and the amount has been deposited by the insurance company in court. By the impugned order dated 16.5.1996 it has been directed that only Rs. 10,000 be paid to the petitioner out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000 and the balance be deposited in some nationalised bank for a long term. I cannot understand how such order could be passed by the trial court. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and hence it is for her to decide what to do with the money which has been awarded. Hence I set aside the order dated 16.5.1996 and direct that the sum of Rs. 75,000 and any interest which may have accrued thereon be paid to the petitioner forthwith.3. Petition is allowed. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)143CTR(All)428; [1997]226ITR411(All); [1997]92TAXMAN524(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated August 30, 1994, passed by the Appropriate Authority, Lucknow, under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), ordering the purchase of plot No. B-70, Sector 14, NOIDA, for a consideration of Rs. 14,57,149.2. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. No one appeared for the landlord (lessee), respondent No. 3.3. Smt. Krishna Kalra, respondent No. 3, acquired the aforesaid plot, measuring 406.25 sq. mtrs., from the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA') on a lease of 99 years for a premium of Rs. 73,937.50, by lease deed dated October 29, 1981. She entered into an agreement with the petitioner on May 7, 1994, to sell her rights in the said plot for a consideration of Rs. 14,90,000...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)147CTR(All)418; [1997]226ITR475(All); [1997]92TAXMAN514(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1977-78 and a direction to refund to the petitioner the entire taxes deposited by it for the assessment year 1977-78 with interest. 2. We have heard Sri M. C. Ramachandran assisted by Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel, for the respondents. 3. The facts are that the assessee, who is an old assessee under the Act, filed the return of income for the assessment year 1977-78 declaring an income of Rs. 21,17,906. In respect of this income, the tax deducted at source was Rs. 2,513, advance tax paid was Rs. 11,45,000 and self-assessment tax deposited under Section 140A was Rs. 96,267. Thus a total of Rs. 12,43,780 had been paid as tax in respect of the returned income. An assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1997)1UPLBEC80
B.K. Singh, J.1. The petitioner who was a candidate in the Combined Entrance Examination (CEE), 1996 has preferred this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus to command the opposite parties to arrange for Counselling/Interview of the petitioner in Backward category and accordingly admit him into B. E./B. Tech Course alongwith the others.2. On behalf of the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow, Admission Committee, Combined Entrance Examination-1996 and Co-ordinator, Admission Committee, CEE-96, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow Sri A. K. Bajpai, Advocate has put in appearance and has filed Counter-affidavit of Sri K. P. Sharma, who is a responsible Officer posted on the post of Officer on Special Duty (Legal), Combined Entrance Examination, 1966.3. I have heard the learned Counsel of the petitioner.4. He has submitted that the petitioner had applied only as a candidate of Backward category and not in Freedom Fighter category. The petitioner was, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1997(90)ELT28(All)
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. The petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Allahabad Annexure 3 to the writ petition and also made an application for stay and waiver for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty required to be made by the petitioner. The Tribunal then passed the impugned order dated 26th July, 1996 on the stay/waiver application requiring the petitioner to make deposit within four weeks from the date of the order.2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. [1996 (83) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], held that Entry 84 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to make a law providing for levy of duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India. The Supreme Court says that indisputably, the special excise duty is an excise duty and is r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All185
1. Present is defendants second appeal arising out of suit filed by plaintiff-respondent, here after the respondent, for specific performance of contract of sale of land in suit dated 2-2-1968 and in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,000/- along with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum.2. Respondent's case was that defendants-appellants hereafter the appellants are the bhumidhars of the land specified in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. Appellants executed an agreement of sale of their land (Khasra Nos. 1090/5 and 1090/6 of V. Puthi Ibrahimpur, Khasra No. 11/2. of V.Jamapur Khador and Khasra of Plot No. 85A of village Samber here) with respondents for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 13,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 12,000/- had been paid to the appellants by the respondent at the time of the agreement and the remaining sum of Rs. 1,000/-was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed which was to be executed within a period of two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)147CTR(All)446; [1997]225ITR113(All); [1997]92TAXMAN110(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a partnership-firm seeks the quashing of an order dated January 20, 1986, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra, whereby he rejected the petitioner's application under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the waiver or reduction of penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 273 of the Act.2. I have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the respondents. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.3. The facts are that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on the residential premises of the partners of the assessee firm and their family members on September 8 and 9, 1983. The petitioner and its partners wanted an amicable settlement and, therefore, they met the Commissioner of Income-tax who visited Farrukhabad ...
Tag this Judgment!