Allahabad Court December 1998 Judgments

U.P. Nalkoop Nigam Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. In this appeal, the assessee has objected to the order of CIT(A), dt. 30th June, 1994 by way of following grounds : "1. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering auditors report, dt. 21st December, 1989, issued on Form No. 3CA and filed along with the return of income. 3. That the penalty confirmed is very excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice." 2. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as learned Departmental Representative but before considering the rival submissions, we think it necessary to extract the brief facts relating to the issue which are necessary for disposal of the dispute and as revealed from the records, as under : 3. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act. Return based on estimate along with audit report in Form 3CA which was based on unaudited accounts...

S.K. JaIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. In this appeal the assessee has listed four grounds in his appeal the only issue involved is the denial of assessee's claim of deduction under s. 80C of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 24,392 out of total claim of Rs. 29,300. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Departmental Representative. The assessee's counsel has submitted that the requirement of provisions of s. 80C is that the contribution should be out of taxable income and it nowhere states that the taxable income should be of the same year in which the contribution has been made. He has further submitted that the past savings of the assessee, if proved to be out of taxable income of past years, have to be taken as taxable income for the purpose of s. 80C, and that contribution out of such past savings qualifies for deduction under s.80C. Reverting to the facts of the case, the assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee was an employee of M/s Jai Prakash Associates (P) Ltd. where it was maintaining tw...

S.K. JaIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1999)65TTJ(All)741

Counsels: Kanchan Kaushal, for the Appellant B.D. Pandey, for the Respondent...

Maiya Deen Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1282

M. Katju and M.C. Agarwal, JJ. 1. This petition has been filed praying for strict compliance of the Lottery Ordinance dated 1.10.1997 and the judgment of this Court dated 10.3.1998 and order dated 25.3.1998. By the aforesaid judgment dated 10.3.1998 in M/s Maa Vaishnav Lotteries Agency v. State of U. P. and others. Writ Petition No. 5733 of 1998, and the order on the review application in the same writ petition passed on 25.3.1998, we had held the Lottery Ordinance to be held valid and it has also ordered that no lottery of any State shall be sold in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter we have passed an interim order dated 16.12.1998 in Akhil Bhartiya Manav Kalyan Samiti v. State of U. P.. Writ Petition No. 43408 of 1998, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, by which we directed the authorities to strictly comply with the orders of this Court.2. It is indeed regrettable that despite the two final judgments of this Court dated 10.3.1998 and 25.3.1998 and the interim order dated 16.12...

Sher Mohammed Khan Vs. Zila Adhikari, Sultanpur and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(4)AWC686

R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 25.11.1998 whereby the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 95 (1) (g) read with rules framed under the said Section has ceased the financial and administrative powers of the petitioner to act as Pradhan and simultaneously appointed a Committee as provided under the said rules.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that impugned order dated 25.11.1998 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as, according to him, only the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could pass the said order, the District Magistrate had no Jurisdiction to pass the same. The order being illegal and without Jurisdiction, according to him, therefore, was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the validit...

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(4)AWC647; (1999)2UPLBEC867

M. Katju and M. C. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the District Magistrate. Chandauli to issue freedom fighter dependent certificate in favour . of the petitioner under Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Serviceman) Act. 1993. The petitioner claims to be a grandson of a former freedom fighter. A large number of petitions are coming up before this Court in which similar prayers are being made. The freedom fight in this country ended more than 50 years ago and, in our opinion, there must be a limit to the benefits being given to the dependents of the freedom fighters. The petitioner is only 18 years of age. The petitioner has invited our attention to U. P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Serviceman) Act, 1993. in Section 2 (b) of the said Act the...

S.K. Garg, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(1)AWC847

M. Katju and M.C. Agarwal, JJ.1. This petition relates to the appalling conditions prevailing in the Government Hospitals in district Allahabad.2. The petitioner is an Advocate practicing in this Court and this petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, He has referred to the conditions prevailing in Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad : Dufferin Hospital, Allahabad ; Colvin Hospital ; T. B. Sapru Hospital (Beli Hospital) etc., which he claims to have visited.3. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition, it has been alleged that needy and poor patients have been refused necessary medicines and proper medical treatment. In paragraph 9 of the petition, it is alleged that the operation theatres are in unhygienic conditions. In paragraph 12 of the petition. it is alleged that pitiable conditions are prevailing in these hospitals particularly for T. B. patients, maternity cases, and patients with other diseases. In paragraph 13 of the petition, it is alleged that the Swaroop Rani Hos...

Anwar UddIn Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Aligarh and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1332

S. Rafat Alam, J.1. This istenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the Judgment and order of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Aligarh, dated 5.11.1985 allowing the revision of the landlord and decreeing the suit for ejectment.2. The short and admitted facts of the case are that the accommodation in question bearing House No. 5/28, Saral Babu, Rasalganj. Call Laxmipuri. Aligarh was let out to the father of the petitioner tenant on a rent of Rs. 20 per month. The respondent landlord filed a suit against the petitioner's father for his ejectment as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and damages, inter alia, on the grounds that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent for the period from May, 1972 to 22.11.1976 and in spite of notice of demand, failed to pay the same nor vacated the premises ; that the tenant has, without permission in writing of the landlord, made certain construction and material alteration in the building which has ...

Gorakh Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(4)AWC650

Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the orders passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.2. The brief facts for the purpose of present writ petition are that during consolidation proceedings dispute arose in respect of plot No. 548 area 77 acres. It is stated by the petitioner that his father Ram Baran was Khudkasht holder of the plot in dispute. He mortgaged it to Flrangl father of Balbhadra and Bharat on 25.5.1912 and put him in possession. The mortgage was redeemed on 26.4.1946 and possession over the plot in dispute was delivered to the petitioner by Balbhadra and Bharat. The petitioner after the zamindari abolition became the bhumidhar as he was Khudkasht holder prior to the enforcement of the zamindari abolition. It is further stated that till 1366 fasli. the plot in disput...

Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Basti ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(4)AWC669

Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 22.4.1985 and 28.5.1984 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, respectively.2. The brief fact, as stated in the present writ petition are that plot No. 281 situated in village Sungaha Badii, Pargana Amaurha, Tehsil Haraiya, district Bastt is a big plot out of which plot No. 281/1 measuring 10 biswas was recorded in the name of Daya Ram and Kanhaiya who have deposited 20 times land revenue and have acquired bhumidhari right and subsequently sold it to the petitioner on 11.9.1975 through a registered sale deed. It-is stated that in the aforesaid sale deed, Ram Asrey, who had filed complaint, was a marginal witness. It is stated that petitioner's name was recorded on the basis of the sale deed and he continues in possession. It is stated that in the year. 1977, the petiti...