Allahabad Court December 1997 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.
Hari Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC937; (1998)1UPLBEC294
D.P. Mohapatra, C.J.1. The bottom-line question that quintessentially falls for determination by this Bench is whether a candidate, seeking direct appointment on the dint of being 'Ex-serviceman' to a post in Group 'A' and/or Group 'B' Service of the State Government, is required to fulfil the condition of 'at least five-years' military service' as a prerequisite to consideration of his candidature as against the posts reserved for 'ex-service men'? An ancillary question, which arises for consideration in this connection, is whether the prescription of five years' military service vide G.O. dated 28.2.1985 as a condition precedent to claim relaxation in upper age limit prescribed for directappointment to Group 'A' and/or Group 'B' services of the State Government is equally essential condition for consideration of the candidature of an ex-serviceman against the quota reserved for 'ex-servicemen' and other defence personnel.2. The question arose in Hari Shanker Upadhyay v. Public Servic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Metal Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(All)722; [1999]236ITR130(All); [1998]100TAXMAN619(All)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction as contemplated under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly allowed to the assessee ?'2. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 which is in dispute, the assessee claimed a relief of Rs. 34,820 under Section 80J of the Act by filing a revised return. In the initial return which was filed for that year, no such claim was made. The assessee-firm had started its business in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, but failed to claim deduction under Section 80J. Even during the two subsequent assessment years, i.e., 1975-76 and 1976-77, no such claim was made. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee's claim ought to h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(All)576; [1999]236ITR177(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the consecutive assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 12,99,806, Rs. 7,82,467 and Rs. 11,19,327 were revenue expenditure and were allowable in computing the total income of the assessee for the years under reference ?'2. The brief facts are these : The respondent-assessee is a subsidiary of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukoot, Mirzapur. It generates power for the consumption of its holding company. In the computation of its total income for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 12,99,806, Rs. 7,82,467 and Rs. 11,1...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC731
D.K. Seth, J.1. Two appeals being Special Appeal No. 317 of 1996 by Union of India and Special Appeal No. 376 of 1996 by Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari have been preferred respectively against the same judgment dated 1.3.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 9726 of 1989. While the Union of India challenged the whole order dated 1.3.1996, Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari challenged only that part of the order, by which the salary for the period from termination till reinstatement was directed to be considered by the Authorities after the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is finally decided.2. Both these appeals were heard together. Mr. Shishir Kumar appeared on behalf of Union of India, appellant in Special Appeal No. 317ofl996and respondent in Special Appeal No. 376 of 1996. Mr. Ashok Khare represented Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari, appellant in Special Appeal No. 376 of 1996 and respondent in Special Appeal No. 317 of 1996. Both the learned Counsel addressed the Court on ever...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd., Mirzapur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: [1998]236ITR177(All); [1998]100TAXMAN362(All)
R.K. Gulati, J.This is a Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the consecutive assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 at the instance of the Commissioner, Allahabad. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 12,99,806, Rs. 7,82,467 and Rs. 11,19,327 were revenue expenditure and were allowable in computing the total income of the assessee for the years under reference?'2. The brief facts are these: The respondent-assessee is a subsidiary of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, Renukoot, Mirzapur. It generates power for the consumption of its holding company. In computation of its total income for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 12,99,806, Rs. 7,82,467 and Rs. 11,19,327 resp...
Jagdamba Khandsari Udyog Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(75)LC517(Allahabad)
R.K. Gulati, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only contention urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the order dated 7th Feb., 1979, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was passed by the Collector Central Excise, Kanpur without affording an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. The order of the Collector was challenged before the Central Board of Excise and Customs where similar contention was raised and was rejected by an order dated 29.2.1980. The Board in its order has found that the case was fixed on different dates for affording a personal hearing to the petitioner but it failed to avail the opportunity on one pretext or the other. The Board in its order has remarked as under:-The counsel of the appellants had set a pre-condition for attending the hearing that they should be shown the seizure report and XT-Is of the seizing officers. Since these documents were department's internal documents and were not relied upon in the case, naturally t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khanna and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(All)278
ORDERThis is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue. The Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in expressing their agreement that the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that on 18-12-1976, a dissolution in law had taken place and with effect from 20-12-1976 an entirely new firm had come into existence ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed ?'2. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1977-78, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1977. On 18-12-1976, Govind Ram Khanna, a partner of the assessee firm died. With effect from 20-12-1976 the surviving partners drew up a fresh deed of par...
Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC403; (1998)1UPLBEC437
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra in his capacity as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamps Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The relevant facts are that Smt. Chandra Prabha Sharma executed a sale deed of a house in favour of the applicants Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and his wife Smt. Surya Kumari on January 1, 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 1.05.000. A stamp duty of Rs. 15,225 was paid and the sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Mathura, on February 1, 1989. The instrument (sale deed) was Inspected by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) on June 30, 1992. He was of the opinion that the property had been undervalued, and accordingly, a reference was made to the District Registrar by the Sub-Registrar on August 8. 1992. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) in his capacity as Collector, Is...
Anurang Tripathi Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC944
S.H.A. Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.1. The petitioner, who is a bank officer, working in Nainital Bank Limited, on the ground of his illness wants to be transferred to any place in plains. He is alleged to have been advised by the doctor that his stay in the hills may affect his health.2. In that regard, he hag submitted a representation to the General Manager, Nainital Bank Limited, who is empowered to transfer the petitioner to any other place in plains.3. As the question involved is too trivial to drag on unnecessarily before this Court, hence after hearing the petitioner as well as Shri V. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the General Manager. Nainital Bank Limited to consider and pass appropriate orders, on the representation of the petitioner dated 4.6.97 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order together with a copy of the representation and communica...
Mahesh Chand Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)AWC1002
G.P. Hathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners which had been determined under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The affidavits filed by the parties show that three persons, namely, Ram Singh, Mahendra Singh and Hukum Singh were tenureholders of plot Nos. 351, 358, 360/4 and 361/3 of village Gailana Mustquil, pargana Sadar, district Agra. The aforesaid plots along with number of other plots were acquired by the State of U. P, for the purpose of construction of 400 Kv. Sub-Station by the U. P. State Electricity Board. The Notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act read with Section 17 were published in the Gazette on 17.4.1982. The possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 21.7.1982. The S.L.A.O, in L.A. Case No. 19 of 1982 made an award under Section 11 of the Act on 24.6....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »