Allahabad Court May 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.
Ajeet Singh and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: [1997]226ITR330(All); [1997]94TAXMAN409(All)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari praying for quashing of the order dated September 12, 1994, passed under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the appropriate authority had passed an order for pre-emptive sale of the property being Plot No. 404, Sector-XVA, Noida district, Ghaziabad. The petitioner further prays that the respondents be directed not to take possession of the property in question.2. The writ petitioners jointly agreed to purchase the aforesaid property on July 25, 1991, for Rs. 14,50,000. A sum of Rs. 4,35,000 was paid by the petitioners to the said respondent No. 3 and it was agreed that balance of Rs. 10,15,000 will be paid on execution and registration of the sale deed by the buyer to the seller. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission for transfer of the land under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act in the prescribed form from the appropriate authority. On October 28, 1991, the valuer of the Income-...
Anil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC395(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this revision petition under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the dealer revisionist challenges an order dated February 13, 1989 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench-1, Kanpur Camp, Jhansi whereby it dismissed the dealer's second appeal No. 167 of 1985.2. I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.3. The revisionist deals in tendu leaves that are purchased from the Forest department and are then sold by him. While selling the tendu leaves to the dealer the Forest department charged sales tax on the sale price of tendu leaves on which sales tax is leviable at the point of sale by a manufacturer or importer. Admittedly, the tendu leaves in question were not imported from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh and were purchased from the Forest department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under the agreement with the Fo...
Ajeet Singh and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(All)306
S. L. SARAF, J. :By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari praying for quashing of the order dt. 12th September, 1994, passed under s. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961, whereby the Appropriate Authority had passed an order for pre-emptive sale of the property being Plot No. 404, Sector-XVA, Noida district, Ghaziabad. The petitioner further prays that the respondents be directed not to take possession of the property in question.2. The writ petitioners jointly agreed to purchase the aforesaid property on 25th July, 1991, for Rs. 14,50,000. A sum of Rs. 4,35,000 was paid by the petitioner to the said respondent No. 3 and it was agreed that balance of Rs. 10,15,000 will be paid on execution and registration of the sale deed by the buyer to the seller. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission for transfer of the land under s. 269UD of the IT Act in the prescribed form from the Appropriate Authority. On 28th October, 1991, the valuer of the IT Department had directed the...
Hindustan Scientific Glass and Fancy Glass Wares Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: [1998]229ITR522(All); [1997]95TAXMAN399(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated September 17, 1991, passed by the Commissioner-respondent No. 1 under Sections 273A(1) and 273A(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'). The facts, as briefly stated, are that during the course of assessment proceedings relating to the assessment year 1985-86, a notice was issued to the assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act on November 26, 1987, calling upon it to explain liabilities worth Rs. 9,78,835. After issue of the notice, the assessee filed a revised return for the assessment year 1984-85 on January 18, 1988, surrendering liabilities worth Rs. 8,66,325. Liabilities of Rs. 9,78,835 appeared in the following names :Sl. No.Name of partyAmount (Rs.)1.Raj Kumar Coal Depot2,42,2732.Chandan Coal Depot1,82,4873.Shiv Coal Supplier1,72,9024.Shailendra Coal Agency1,25,2585.Bhawani Coal Co.26,4006.Singh Coal Co.2,29,515 9,78,8353. The position of the accounts of the aforesaid parties in...
M.N. Refractories Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC263(All)
M.C. Agarwal, J.1. These two revision petitions by the dealer are directed against a common order dated December 12, 1996, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal whereby it allowed the Commissioner's appeal Nos. 495 and 496 of 1992 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 and setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), restored the penalties levied by the assessing officer under Section 10A read with Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.3. The revisionist manufactures refractories and ceramic products and uses coal in its furnaces as a raw material. It is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act and the registration certificate authorised it to import coal for use as a raw material. A part of the coal purchased by it was sold and not used in the manufacturing process and it is for this reason that proceedings ...
Arun Lata Vs. Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998All29; II(1997)DMC383
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. An application for vacating the stay order was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. The said application was listed for orders on 20th March 1997. Mr. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the opposite party, took a preliminary objection. He contended that under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an appeal lies against the impugned order before the learned District Judge. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. A. Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, disputed the said contention on various grounds. Since the hearing could not be completed the matter was adjourned till 9th of April 1997. On the next date, it was further adjourned till 12th May 1997. On 25th April 1997, both the learned counsel pointed out that the matter was fixed on 24th April, 1997 but by mistake the date was noted as 12th May, 1997 in the order dated 9th April, 1997. Accordingly the matter was fixed on 9th May, 1997 instead of 12th May, 1997 by an order dated 25th Apri...
Khem Chand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR682(All); [1998]99TAXMAN457(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned orders--annexures 5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax dismissing the revisions filed by the petitioner against the orders, passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner charging interest under Sections 215, 216 and Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (briefly 'the Act').3. It is to be made clear that while passing the impugned order, annexure '7' to the writ petition upholding the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner charging interest under Section 220(2) of the Act, no new reasoning was given by the Commissioner of Income-tax, but to pass that order he simply relied on his earlier orders annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition.4. The question for consideration before the Commissioner of Income-tax was whether interest under Sections 215, 216 and 220(2) of the Act was chargeable from the petitioner.5. The material finding of the Commis...
Zebra Zippers (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC91(All)
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order dated May 7, 1994, annexure 3 to the writ petition, petitioners engaged in the manufacture of zipper tapes and zipper laces, were called upon by the assessing authority to show cause why the items manufactured by the petitioners be not brought to tax at the rate of 4 per cent in view of entry 50 of the Notification No. 7036, dated September 29, 1984.3. In its representation dated March 3, 1994, annexure 2 to the writ petition, the petitioners averred that tapes and laces are being manufactured by polyester yarns and hence they are in the nature of fabrics/textiles--not liable to tax.4. In the counter-affidavit filed for the respondents, it is denied that the tapes and laces manufactured by the petitioners, are in the nature of fabrics/textiles. It is reiterated that the tapes and laces manufactured by the petitioners fall within the ambit of entry 50 of the Notification No. 7036 dated September 29, 1984, which runs as follows :'...
Vijay NaraIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC722
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.6.1991 passed by respondent No. 2, terminating the petitioner's service pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a Class-Ill employee the District Agriculture Officer is not appointing authority and, therefore, he could not have passed the order of dismissal. He secondly contends that the Inquiry Officer, who was asked to hold inquiry and submit report, instead of submitting the report had passed an order of dismissal. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer, who was asked to submit report, cannot pass order of dismissal. The third contention raised by him was that the documents on which the Disciplinary authority had relied on, was not supplied alongwith the charge-sheet. Giving of inspection of those documents would not absolve the process of opportunity to be given to a delinquent, as contemplat...
Sudhindra Kumar Singh Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)16; 1998CriLJ1042
ORDERO.P. Garg, J.1. By means of this application moved under Sections 482/407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order dated 7th May, 1997 passed by Sri B. K. Rathi, learned District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad releasing S/Sri Asharfi Lal, Sarva Singh and Smt. Nirja Singh, opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4, who are inolved in case under Sections 302/201, I.P.C. on interim bail during the pendency of the bail application has been challenged and it is prayed that the aforesaid order be quashed and the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be directed to be taken in custody immediately. The prayer that bail application filed by the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be transferred to some adjoining district or to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Allahabad has also been made.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. On behalf of the applicant, Sri Prem Prakash and Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel, have been heard, On behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4, S/Sri Ravi Kiran Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »