Allahabad Court July 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.
Lalloo Bharti Vs. Anwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC10
Binod Kumar Roy, J.1. The memorandum of this appeal filed under. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shows that it is against the judgment dated 25.10.1991 and decree dated 15.11.1991 of the VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed in Misc. Claim Petition No. 59 of 1990 and that two-fold reliefs have been claimed: (i) to set aside the order dated 25.10.1991 by which the appellant's restoration application was rejected, and (ii) Misc. Claim Petition No. 59 of 1990 be sent back to the Tribunal for trial and assessment of compensation. The decree dated 15.11.1991 shows that it is a formal order drawn up in Misc. Case No. 60 of 1990 arising out of Misc. Case No. 17 of 1990 and Claim Petition No. 222 of 1987 stating rejection of the appellant's application (3/C) only.2. The appellant filed claim petition under Section 110-D and 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act on 23.10.1987 before the Tribunal which was registered as Claim Petition No. 22...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR619(All); [1998]96TAXMAN232(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in cancelling penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant facts as stated in the statement of the case are that the assessee in the status of individual, carried on business in commission agency prior to the assessment year 1968-69. For the assessment year 1968-69 a return was filed showing an income of Rs. 33,233 representing share of profit from a firm, Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi. The assessee claimed that the individual business was converted into a partnership firm comprising two partners, namely, the assessee and his son, with effect from April 1, 1967. 3. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) came to the conclusion that the partnership business had come into ...
U.P. Pharmacy Council and anr. Vs. Yash Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)1UPLBEC462
I.P. Vasishth, J.1. This Special appeal is directed against the orders/judgment dated 22.11.1994 and 18,10.1995 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Singh in Writ Petition No. 2119 of 1982 on application No. 14858 (W) of 1994 and 13244 (W) of 1995 (recall application dated 9.10.1995) respectively.2. The case has a chequered history succinctly put; the writ petitioner Yash Karan Singh was an employee of the Uttar Pradesh Dental Council but for quite some time was working on deputation with the U.P. Pharmacy Council, Lucknow, since August 1980. Towards the close of April 1982 his services were sought to be repatriated to parent department against which he reonstrated and finally came to the Court as a petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2119 of 1982. An interim order was passed in that case on 10.5.1982 staying his repatriation. On 26.11.1983 some modification was ordered and a direction issued to the Pharmacy Council for depositing his salary which he was drawing at the time of repatriation. ...
Pappu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ122
P.K. Jain, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 18-9-1979 passed by Sri G. S. Sharma, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad, convicting the appellants under Section 307, I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1979 and sentencing Pappu appellant to under go three years' R.I. and appellant, Babbu to five years' R.I.2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that on 11 -11 -1978 at about 7.00 p.m. first informant Laiq Ahmad and his brother Jameer Ahmad had gone to the market in Mohalla Tabakiyan, P.S. Mughalpura, district Moradabad for making purchases on the occasion of Id. When they reached in front of the shop of appellant Babbu, Babbu suddenly came out of his shop and collided with Jameer Ahmed. A verbal duel and scuffle ensued. The first informant and scuffle ensued. The first informant and witnesses Abdul Jabbar Khan, Abdul Qayum, and Sardar Husain and others intervened. Babbu thereupon went inside the shop and returned with a pistol and suddently fired at ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Bhajan Lal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(All)401
BY THE COURT :The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly the Act)'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question whether the amount paid by the assessee subsequent to the date of the payment of the last instalment, the advance tax on 15th December, 1972 qualified for earning interest under s. 214(1) was debatable and, therefore, in view of the judgment in T. C. Balram, ITO vs . Volkart Bros. & Ors. in : [1971]82ITR50(SC) the interest already allowed to the assessee could not be withdrawn under section ?'2. Admittedly the assessee had paid last instalment of advance tax after 15th December, 1972, but during the financial year, relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74. The amount of instalment paid was found in excess on a regular assessment. The ITO allowed interest to the assessee on the excess amount. But later on taking the view that the instal...
M/S. Sumac International Ltd. Vs. M/S. Pnb Capital Services Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1997All424; [1998]93CompCas236(All)
ORDERR. R. K. Trivedi, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 6-12-1996, passed by learned single Judge, in Company Petition No. 16 of 1996, the respondent therein has filed this appeal. By the impugned order objection of the appellant questioning the maintainability of the Company petition in this Court at Allahabad has been overruled.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent Punjab National Bank tiled a petition on 2-7-1996 for winding up of appellant Company under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The winding up of the Company has been sought on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts and, therefore, it should be wound up by order of this Court. On 3-7-1996 this Court issued notice to the appellant Company to show cause why the petition may not be admitted and advertised. In response to this notice, the appellant Company appeared and filed objection questioning the maintainability of the Company Petition and prayed for dismissal of ...
ishwar Dayal Misra Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Al ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)AWC561
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in the post of L. T. Grade Teacher in the concerned Institution on 15th July, 1967 when the date of birth was entered in his service record as on 1st July, 1937 on the basis of the High School Certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as on 1st July, 1937. The School authority issued a show-cause notice on the petitioner on 28th September, 1995 alleging that from the record of his admission in the year 1949 and the Middle Examination and in the Amar Shaheed Inter College. Bewar. Mainpuri, where the petitioner was admitted after passing the Middle Examination and Rashtriya Vidya Mandir Inter College, Akbarpur, Farrukhabad from where the petitioner passed the High School Examination and Sri Tilak Vidyalaya Inter College, Firozabad from where the petitioner passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 1954, it was apparent that the date of birth of the petitioner was 8th June. 1934. Therefore, he should explain why...
Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
Reported in: 1997LC1(Allahabad); 1998LC519(Allahabad); 1998(98)ELT591(All)
S.L. Saraf, J.1. The petitioner is manufacturer of vacuum cleaners. The case of the petitioner is that it manufactures certain items as part of the vacuum cleaners whereas the other parts and accessories known as optional accessories are purchased from the market and so such accessories are never manufactured within the factory premises of the petitioner nor they are cleared from the factory premises as such they are not excisable goods nor the value of such products can be added for assessing the value of the product for the purposes of levying the excise duty. According to the petitioner this position has been upheld by the order of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/676/94-A & E/1647/94-A, dated 5-2-1996 1996 (83) E.L.T. 334 (Tribunal). According to the petitioner the Tribunal had come to a finding of fact that extra numbers of bags in excess of one supplied along with the machine duly fitted will not be its component parts and they ...
Abhay Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(All)247
BY THE COURT :The Tribunal (Delhi Bench C New Delhi) referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether the amendment of s. 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act coming w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 could be applicable for asst. yr. 1976-77 in the case of the applicant-assessee and particularly for the Accounting period ending on 30th September, 1975'.2. Assessment year relevant in this case is 1976-77 for which the accounting period ended on 30th September, 1975. The contention of the assessee is that income having accrued upto 30th September, 1975 cannot be brought to tax under s. 64(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, which came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 1976.3. The question is as to which law will apply to the facts of this case. In Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs . CIT : [1979]120ITR921(SC) the Supreme Court held that it is a cardinal principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is that in force in the assessment year, unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary imp...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(All)289
ORDER--Applicability of Explanation (c) to section 263(1). Ratio :Matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider whether Explanation (c) to section 263(1), inserted with effect from 1-6-1988, would apply to an appeal decided before insertion of the same and therefore, part of assessment order against which appeal was not preferred would not merge with the appellate order and can be revised under section 263. Held :Since the contention of the revenue is that clause (c) of the Explanation to section 263(1) is retrospective in nature and, hence is applicable to the case at hand it is nothing but necessary to consider this contention. It is important to note that a division Bench of this court remitted the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. to the Tribunal which decision is the sole basis of the order of the Tribunal [see CIT v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996) 220 ITR 671 (All)] and, therefore, it is nothing but appropriate to direct the Tribunal in this case also to consider the question wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›