Allahabad Court October 1999 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Omrao Industrial Corporation (P.) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1999
Reported in: [2000]246ITR346(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, in the course of making reassessment after having validly initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of certain items of escaped income, the Income-tax Officer can also add/disallow in computing the total income of the asses-see certain other items which were allowed by him at the Lime of framing original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the Commissioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent.2. The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147(a) on the ground that the ammonia compressor on which depreciation had been allowed was not actually installed. While framing the assessment under Section 148, the Assessing Officer, however, made several other disallowances...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. MohsIn Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1999
Reported in: (2000)1UPLBEC255
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. These special appeals have been filed against the interim order dated 12-8-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition bearing No. 3358 (S/S) of 1995 (Mohsin Ali and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) that the petitioners of this Writ Petition shall also be entitled to the similar benefits as have been given to the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 4295 (S/S) of 1996 and 4409 (S/S) of 1996 and those petitioners who have put in five years or more shall be entitled to minimum of the pay scale to which a regularly placed class IV employee is entitled this benefit shall be made effective with effect from 15th August, 1996.2. The Special Appeal No. 83 (S/B) of 1999 was filed against the order dated 18th March, 1998 in which the Hon'ble Single Judge passed an order that till further orders of this Court the petitioners shall continue to get their salary as they had drawn upto 25-1-1998 as per the revised pay scale. The petitioners shall also be entitled to other be...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Omrao Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1999
Reported in: [2001]246ITR346(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, in the course of making reassessment after having validly initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of certain items of escaped income, the Income Tax Officer can also add/disallow in computing the total income of the assessee certain other items which were allowed by him at the time of framing original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the Commissioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent.The assessee's assessment was reopened under section 147(a) on the ground that the ammonia compressor on which depreciation had been allowed was not actually installed. While framing the assessment under section 148, the assessing officer, however, made several other disallowances fro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Dei Devi, Anand Ram Jaipuria Public ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(All)352; [2000]245ITR295(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has, in compliance with the direction of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the, following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,15,326 being the dividend on the shares of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and a sum of Rs. 15,227 being the tax deducted at source thereon were liable to be excluded from the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The said question arises out of the Tribunal's order dated May 17, 1996, passed in ITA No. 37 (All) of 1975-76 for the assessment year 1971-72. 3. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. 4. The dispute is about a sum of Rs. 1,15,326.28 which was the dividend that was declared by the company, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Dei Devi, Anand Ram Jaipuria Public ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1999
Reported in: [2001]245ITR295(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has, in compliance with the direction of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,15,326 being the dividend on the shares of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. and a sum of Rs. 15,227 being the tax deducted at source thereon were liable to be excluded from the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1971-72 ?'2. The said question arises out of the Tribunal's order dated 17-5-1996, passed in ITA No. 37 (All) of 1975-76 for the assessment year 1971-72.3. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Commissioner. and Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent.4. The dispute is about a sum of Rs. 1,15,326.28 which was the dividend that was declared by the company, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., in respect...
Mangal Alias Bhotu Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3003
1. The aforesaid three appeals and the death reference arise out of the judgment in S.T. No. 43 of 1995 dated 2-5-1998 recorded by the Spl. Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Banda. By his judgment and order the trial Judge had convicted appellant Purushottam Kekwat and Bhondu alias Mama under Sections 302/149, IPC and had sentenced them to death. The death sentence necessitated the reference in question. These two appellants were also convicted for offencess under Sections 364-A and 201, IPC and each was sentenced of life imprisonmentk and to R.I. for five years for the respective offences. The appellants Mangal alias Bhotu, Purri Lal alias Baba and Munna alias Chhotu were also convicted for offences under Sections 364A and 302/149, IPC for which each was sentenced to life imprisonment. There was further conviction of these persons under Section 201 IPC for which each was sentenced to R.I. for five years. The trial Judge had directed that the sentence were to run concurrently. These appel...
Smt. Sunita Yadav and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC12; [2000(84)FLR806]
A.K. Yog, J.1. Narendra Singh Yadav filed this writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash impugned order of termination dated 22nd July 1989 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).2. It is admitted at the Bar that petitioner was subsequently reinstated vide order dated 8th March 1996 issued by the then District Magistrate. Agra (Order No. 5401/Istha) referred to in another Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the Amendment Application, copy of which has been served upon standing counsel.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner died, who was suffering from Incoiloging spondelitice. Petitioner was terminated vide order dated 22nd July, 1989 because of his said illness,as is evident from the record of the present case. Since said termination order, according to the petitioner, was passed without affording opportunity, it appears that termination order was revoked by the District Magistrate, Agra vide his aforementioned order dated 8th March, 1996.4. It appears that...
Rama Shanker Barnwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC168; (2000)1UPLBEC567
D. S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel of the petitioner. Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for therespondent Nos. 4 to 9, at length and in detail.2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 27th January, 1999. passed by the State Government, the respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is Annexure-'6' to the petition. The impugned order, which has been passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. (hereinafter called the 'Act'), purports to remove the petitioner from the office of Chairman. Nagar Panchayat, Bhatparrani in the district of Deoria.3. Taking cognizance of certain complaints received by it, the respondent No. 1 formed an opinion that during the performance of his duties as Cha...
Himmat Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC287; [2000(84)FLR794]; (2000)ILLJ1104All
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. This writ petition, among others, raises the question regarding the effect of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the Contract Labour Act) on the definition of the word 'employer' as in clause (iv) of Section 2 (i) (the Section 2 (i), (iv)) of the U. P. Stale Industrial Disputes Act (the State Act). Docs the Contract Labour Act override Section 2 (i) (iv) of the State ActFACTS 2. The Indian Explosive Limited (the company), respondent No. 2, manufactures urea and is within the purview of the Contract Labour Act. It is registered under Chapter III of the same. It has many licensed contractors including one M/s. Abdul Rehman (the contractor Rehman). These licensed contractors engage many persons to do the work contracted out to them. The Fertiliser Workers Union (the Union) filed an application under Rule 25 (v) (a) of the Rules framed under the Contract Labour Act before the Labour Commissioner. This was for the relief that the different person...
Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(All)27; [2000]243ITR345(All); [2000]109TAXMAN332(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,34,667 is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and/or Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the present assessment year 1960-61 ?(2) Whether the decision of the Tribunal rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 1,34,667 is vitiated by consideration of irrelevant material and a failure to consider the relevant material and facts ?(3) Whether the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is vitiated by taking reliance upon the Tribunal's decision in the assessment year 1961-62, which was given in connection with a different matter under entirely different facts and circumstances ?'2. The aforesaid questions are stated to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated April 22, 1978, in I. T. A. No. 2001 (All) of 1971-72 for the assess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »