Allahabad Court September 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.
Bansal Ispaat (Lucknow) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD246(All.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an order of the CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 54,567 claimed by the assessee to be profits of M/s. Shreejee Traders.2. The assessee is a company having business of steel re-rolling. In this process, raw materials, like ingots, billets, iron scrap etc. are heated in the furnace and re-rolled into iron rods, angles etc. of different sizes.3. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had made certain sales to a sister concern, M/s. Shreejee Traders, Lucknow in which the wives of the directors were partners.Such sales were Rs. 27,74,688 for 445.005 M.T. The concern had same place of business as the assessee. It was further found that no actual delivery of the goods was made to this concern. The delivery was made through the challans from the factory of the assessee directly to the ultimate buyer. However, bills for these goods were raised by the assessee on M/s. Shreejee Traders, who in turn, raised ...
Jagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)1UPLBEC112
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. In these two petitions the petitioners Jagat Singh and Gorakh Nath Upadhyaya respectively have challenged the award of a lease to collect tolls at Kaparwar Setu situate in district Deoria for the period 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997 to Beni Madhav Pandey who is respondent No. 4 in both the petitions.2. Both these petitions were listed for hearing on 3rd September, 1996. In writ petition No. 11053 of 1996 affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the patties were heard. In writ petition No. 10089 of 1996, however, the petitioner did not appear on that date. Since the controversy in both the writ petitions is the same this writ petition too is disposed of on merits by this common judgment.3. The case as set up in writ petition No. 11053 of 1996 if that there is a bridge known as Kaparwar setu situate in district Deoria which is a post of the Gorakhpur Division. The toll tax is being collected in respect of use of the said bridge and Beni Madhav Pandey responde...
Bhonu Alias NizamuddIn Vs. Nankulli and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All236
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1980 dated 24-3-93, whereby the decree of the trial Court in Original Suit No. 344 of 1979 was confirmed.2. The suit in question was brought by Savitri and Nankulli against Bhonu and three others for a direction upon the defendants for biding them from disturbing the possession of the plainliffs on the suit property. It was stated that Savitri was a daughter of Munai (defendant No. 2) and Nankulliwas her husband. Savitri and Nankulli were married more than twenty years prior to the institution of the suit. They had no house to live in. A vacant land of Maheshwar Gir was lying close to the house of Munai and the daughter made a prayer to the father that arrangement be made for settlement of that plot in her favour so that a house be made thereon and her husband might build their residential house thereon. Accordingly, defendant No- 2 arranged for settlement of a land measuring 45 feet x 20 feet i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Beni Ram Banshi Dhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR857(All)
1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-Hindu undivided family should be assessed at the rates applicable to an individual, Hindu undivided family, etc., and not at the higher rates applicable to a specified Hindu undivided family ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition of the assessee-Hindu undivided family which had taken place in 1963 amongst three brothers who constituted the assessee-Hindu undivided family, as a result of which only immovable properties were left with the assessee-Hindu undivided family and the other assets were divided amongst the three brothers who constituted smaller Hindu undivided families in respect of the assets falling to their shares.3. The question arises whether the assessee-Hindu undivided family is ...
India Polyfibres Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD433(All.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Lucknow, dated 31-12-1993, for the assessment year 1988-89.2. The only issue pressed before us for adjudication in the present appeal relates to rejection of the claim for investment allowance. The grounds raised in this behalf are as under : "I. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(Appeals)] erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of the appellants claim made for grant of Investment Allowance amounting to Rs. 15,45,06,722 in the present year. II. On the facts stated in the written submissions submitted before the learned CIT(Appeals) supported by full and complete evidence during the course of appellate proceeding the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have held that the appellant was fully entitled to claim Investment Allowance of Rs. 15,45,06,722 during the present year, because the Plant and Machinery was put to use by the appellant only during ...
Baij Nath Dubey and ors. Vs. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Chairman and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2681
ORDERA.B. Srivastava, JJ.1. At one stage parties to this case, both of them, gave the Court to understand that the issues were resolved by an agreement and compromise recorded and when the Court proceeded to consign the petition to the record as there is nothing left to decide with issues settled and compromised, the contesting respondent the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, retracted from the agreement. It said that the officer who entered into the agreement was without authority to act. The official who signed the agreement retracted, to say that he had never been authorised to act. Unsettling settled issues or wrongfully settling issues without sanction both circumstances compromise and interfere with public justice. These! circumstances reflect on perjury and contempt to Court proceedings. Notice was issued to the official who retracted and to the organisation whose employee he was. The application of the petitioner that the matter had been settled remained pending on record since 1989.2....
Modi Olivetti Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT49(All)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.By the impugned order dated 22-12-1989, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rampur a provisional assessment was made under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (briefly) 'the Rules'.2. The contention of the petitioner is that under Rule 173CC of the Rules, once a price list is submitted and an assessee is permitted to clear the goods, a provisional assessment will be deemed to have been made and no further provisional assessment can be made under Rule 9-B. In support of his contention, Shri S.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Modi Xerox Limited v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rampur and Anr. decided in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 660 of 1989.3. The impugned order, Annexure-1 to the writ petition was passed on 22-12-1989. It is submitted by Shri Verma that enough time having elapsed final approval order, ordinarily, should have been passed by this time by the respondents and if that i...
Sardar and Another Vs. Ram Khilauna and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All268
1. Two set of suits, one by respondents being suit No. 58 of 1969 which was filed by Ram Khilauna, Charni, Rathi, since deceased represented by legal represenlati ves, hereafter called convenantees the term which has through out been used by the Courts below as well. Covenantees sought the relief or specific performance of an agreement of sale against Ram Khilari and Nihal Singh, hereinafter addressed, like before by Courts below, as vendors. The case as set up by them was that vendors had entered into an agreement of sale with them in respect of Chak No. 92 measuring 23.83 acres, which is the land in suit, on 19-4-69 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- out of which vendors accepted a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as earnest money as advance payment of the price of he land settled between covenantees and vendors. In pursuance of the said agreement covenantees were put in possession over the land in suit and they put a hut on it and sowed sugar-cane crop in one acre but on 7-5-69 the vendors sold the same ...
Jamil Ahmad and Others Vs. Smt. Kumud Rajdeo Singh and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997All374
1. The appeal was presented on 1-8-1995 against the first appellate judgment and decree dated 31-5-95 in Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1991 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge. Azamgarh. The first appeal arose from the Original Suit No. 55 of 1965 decreeing the suit by the judgment and decree dated 27-11-68 recorded by the Additional Civil Judge. Azamgarh.2. Prior to the presentation of the appeal Sri L. P. Singh had filed a caveat on 3-7-95. The matter came up in presence of the learned counsel for both the parties on 1-9-95 when the appeal was admitted and the prayer for stay of the operation of the first appellate decree together with the hearing of the appeal was expedited by another judicial order of the same date. At the time of admission, however, no substantial question of law was framed by the Judge admitting the appeal. The memo of appeal, however, indicated that ground Nos. 3.4.5 and 6 involved questions of law. When the matter came up for hearing a preliminary objection...
Dr. Ramji Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ811All
R.A. Sharma, J. 1. By an order dated February 1, 1986 the petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Deoria. His appointment was on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till the candidate selectedby the U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') joins the post, whichever is earlier. Although the petitioner's ad hoc appointment was for limited period, but he was allowed to continue alongwith other Ayurvedic.Medical Officers on ad hoc basis. The petitioner was considered for regularisation of service but he was not found suitable. His service was accordingly terminated vide order dated March 31, 1992. Being aggrieved by it he has filed this writ petition.2. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the service of ad hoc Government servants cannot be terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work/performance unless he has been given an opportunity to explain and to improve his work, and in the instant ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »