Allahabad Court April 1999 Judgments

Senior Accounts Officer, thermal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. In these two appeals against the consolidated order of the CIT(A)-I, Varanasi, dt. 29th February, 1993, the assessee is objecting to the sustenance of penalty of Rs. 3,64,608 and Rs. 8,77,296 imposed under s.271C of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. As many as six identical grounds have been taken in each of the appeals which are argumentative in nature.2. Briefly stated, the facts concerning the matter are that the assessee, a Senior Accounts Officer in B-Thermal Power Project of U.P.State Electricity Board, Anpara, was a person responsible for deduction of tax at source under s. 194-C of the Act from payments made to contractors and sub-contractors. During the financial years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and 1991-92, payments of Rs. 1,68,80,000 and Rs. 3,91,65,000 were made to M/s Indian Railway Construction Co. (IRCON in short). On scrutiny of the returns in Form No. 26C filed by the aforesaid person, the ITO (TDS) noticed that deduction of the prescri...

Madan Gopal Maheshwari Vs. District Judge, Mathura and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1785

Yatindra Singh, J.1. This is tenant's writ petition against the orders dated 12.4.1994, 18.7.1995 and 2.8.1995 declaring vacancy and releasing the premises in favour of the landlord respondent Nos. 3 and 4. We are concerned with only that part of judgment, which relates to the declaration of vacancy. In the event that order falls, the release order will automatically go and in case that order is upheld, no objection against the release can be taken by the petitioner.FACTS 2. The premises in dispute is a residential premises in which Madan Gopal Maheshwari (the tenant for short) was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 85 per month. He has got eight sons and two daughters. According to him, his two sons and two widoweddaughters arc residing with him. The present proceeding started on the application filed by the landlord on 29.5.1994. According to the landlord. Mad an Gopal Maheshwari along with his five sons have constructed the house Nos. 1098 and 1099 Bert Pada Lal Darwaja. Mathura and as suc...

Kripali and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2001

D.S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard SriPrakash Chandra Srivastava, holding brief of Sri V. B. L. Srivastava. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Dr. Mahdu Tandon, the learned Brief Holder of the State of U, P., representing the respondents.2. Notices dated 19th January, 1991, under the provisions of theU. P. Acquisition of Property (Flood Relief) Act. 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The learned counsel of the petitioners contends that the Impugned notices are invalid inasmuch as they are composite notices under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, which is not permissible in law.4. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioners, Dr. Madhu Tandon, the learned Brief Holder of the State of U. P., appearing for the respondents, submits that the impugned notices are not composite notices for requisition and acquisition. According to her, indeed, the impugned notices are notices only for re...

BipIn Kumar and Subhash Chandra Vs. District Magistrate, Garhwal and A ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2089

R.S. Dhavan, J. 1. This is a case from Pauri Garhwal. The petitioners. Messrs. Bipin Kumar and Subhash Chandra Kothari, claim mining rights for excavating sand, grit, small stones (Bajari) and boulders from a river, Malan River, flowing along the Kotdwar Range. The mining operations of the petitioners are under the Landsdowne, Forest Division in Pauri Garhwal. The petitioners had applied for a mining lease under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, As the mining area came within reserved forests, thus, the approval of the Government of India had to be sought by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In the circumstances, the State of Uttar Pradesh sought permission of the Government of India. Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment), Minerals and Wild Life. New Delhi. The Government of India considered the matter and had its approval conveyed for the two mining areas for which permission was being sought. The mining ar...

Prabhu Nath Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, R.E.S., Ghazipur and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2165; [1999(82)FLR914]; (1999)2UPLBEC1131

A.K. Yog, J.1. Petitioner alleges in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that he was working as Junior Engineer and he was suspended vide order dated 24th February, 1994. While under suspension, he was attached to Ghazipur Division of Rural Engineering Services under the State Government. In para 8 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and that an enquiry was going on when the writ petition was filed. Petitioner has filed on 27.11.1997 a supplementary affidavit after serving its copy in the Office of Chief Standing Counsel on 25.11.1997. Para 16 of the said supplementary affidavit reads--'that it is not out of place to mention here that from time to time Executive Engineers were appointed to hold and complete the enquiry about alleged charges mentioned in the suspension order dated 24th February, 1994, but till date none of them has completed, nor any irregularity or mistake on the par...

Modipon Fibres Company Vs. Commr. (A) Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999LC834(Allahabad); 1999(114)ELT15(All)

M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 14-1-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad whereby in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 he has partially waived the condition of pre-deposit and has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 22.88 lacs and the recovery of the balance has been waived till the hearing of the appeal.2. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Surya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The petitioner claimed Modvat credit by virtue of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules for high speed diesel oil used by it for the production of electricity for its factory that manufactures synthetic filament yarn. Clause (iv) of the Rule 57B specifically mentions goods used for generation of electricity or steam used for manufacture of final product...

Hiran Tobacco Factory Vs. Cegat and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(84)LC833(Allahabad)

M.C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged an order dated 23.3.1998 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/S/474/98-N.B. under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, whereby, it directed the petitioner who is appellant before the Tribunal in the said appeal to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lacs.2. When this petition was filed this Court by an interim order dated 11.8.1998 directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months without insisting on the pre-deposit. Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that the said appeal has since been decided and therefore, the cause of action does not survive. Sri Surya Prakash, learned standing counsel for the respondent does not controvert the statement.3. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous....

Senior Accounts Officer, thermal Power Project, Anpara Vs. Assistant C ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(All)529

ORDERKRISHNA SWARUP, AM:In these two appeals against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-1, Varanasi, dt. 29th Feb., 1993, the assessee is objecting to the sustenance of penalty of Rs. 3,64,608 and Rs. 8,77,296 imposed under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. As many as six identical grounds have been taken in each of the appeals which are argumentative in nature.2. Briefly stated, the facts concerning the matter are that the assessee, a Senior Accounts Officer in 1-Thermal Power Project of U.P. State Electricity Board, Anpara, was a person responsible for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act from payments made to contractors and sub- contractors. During the financial years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and 1991-92, payments of Rs. 1,68,80,000 and Rs. 3,91,65,000 were made to M/s Indian Railway Construction Co. (IRCON in short), On scrutiny of the returns in Form No. 26C filed by the aforesaid person,...

Sham ShuddIn Khan Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)1UPLBEC70

P.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 31-12-87 passed after holding the departmental proceedings as well as the appellate order dated 12-8-88 passed in appeal filed against the order dated31-12-87.2. The petitioner was chargesheeted on 22-8-81. In the chargesheet two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The chargesheet is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The first charge was to the effect that the petitioner on 6-7-81 attacked Sri V.P. Joshi, Assistant Regional Accounts Officer who was holding inquiry against Sri S.B. Jauhari, Bus-Conductor on the charges of corruption and embezzlement against the said Bus-conductor, in order to get the said inquiry dropped. The second charge was that on 15-7-81 petitioner alongwith two other persons caught Sri Joshi, abused him and extended the threat to kill him saying that Sri Joshi was taking special interest in the matter of the said Conductor S.B. Jauhari.3. In support of the charges...

Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Collector, Mahoba and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1885

Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the citation notice dated 18.1.1999 demanding sum of Rs. 12,277 plus interest and other charges.2. The petitioner took loan for a pumping set, from Allahabad Bank,respondent No. 3. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount, recovery certificate was sent and respondent No. 2 issued a citation for recovery of Rs. 12.277.3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 is demanding collection charges at ten per cent of the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate. It is contended that the property has yet not been auctioned and unless the auction takes place, the petitioner is not liable to pay any collection charges. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench in Mirza Javed v. U. P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and another, AIR 1983 Alt 234, wherein it was held that where the State Financial Corporation sent a certificate under Section 3 of U. P. Public Moneys (R...