Allahabad Court June 1999 Judgments

Monga Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) on various grounds.Hearing of this appeal has been fixed on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dt. 16th March,1999.2. In the grounds of appeal enclosed along with the memorandum of appeal the assessee has listed as many as 9 grounds but at the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel Shri S. K. Garg, withdrew Ground No. 3.1 and 3.4 which are dismissed as withdrawn.In these grounds the assessee has objected to the validity of the notice dt. 12th Dec., 1996, issued as required by the provisions of s.158BC of the Act.3.1. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Addl.standing counsel.3.2. The counsel for the assessee first of all submitted that the notice required to be served upon the assessee as per the provisions of...

Monga Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(All)247

ORDERI.S. Verma, J. M.This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on various grounds.Hearing of this appeal has been fixed on priority basis as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 16-3-1999.2. In the grounds of appeal enclosed along with the memorandum of appeal the assessee has listed as many as 9 grounds but at the time of hearing the assessee's learned counsel Shri S.K. Garg, withdrew Ground No. 3.1 and 3.4 which are dismissed as withdrawn.3. Ground Nos. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4In these grounds the assessee has objected to the validity of the notice dated 12-12-1996, issued as required by the provisions of section 158BC of the Act.3.1. We have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Addl. standing counsel.3.2. The counsel for the assessee first of all submitted that th...

Sudesh JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2000(67)ECC29; 1999(113)ELT780(All)

ORDERS.R. Singh, J.1. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made across the bar and perusal of the Bill of Entry for home consumption, a photograph of which was produced by Sri S.N. Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India during the course of argument, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court, on material brought on record, that the proper Officer had made an order permitting the clearance of the goods for home consumption as visualised by Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 so as to support his contention that the goods having been cleared for home consumption under Section 47 of the Customs Act, the proceeding for confiscation as visualised by Section of the Customs Act would not be maintainable and hence proceeding under Section 108 requiring the petitioner to give the evidence or to produce documents, etc. too would not be maintainable. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the ongoing...

Smt. Usha Tripathi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

1. In this appeal the assessee has objected to the assessment order for block period passed by the AO under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act (hereinafter called the Act) and has listed as many as 21 grounds.1.1. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant/assessee also sought permission, as per letter dt. 15th February, 1999, for admission of two additional grounds. But since the counsel for the assessee pleaded for withdrawal of the additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal, the same are dismissed as such.2. As far as the other grounds are concerned, we have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned Departmental Representative and proceed to decide the various issues as under : 3. These grounds are against the determination of appellant's undisclosed 'income of Rs. 4,05,840 on the basis of seized documents marked as Annexure A-1.3.1. Before divulging to the arguments advanced by the parties, we consider it necessary to refer to the brief facts, as...

Smt. Usha Tripathi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(All)508

ORDERLS. VERMA, J.M.:In this appeal the assessee has objected to the assessment order for block period passed by the assessing officer under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) and has listed as many as 21 grounds.1.1. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant/assessee also sought permission, as per letter dt. 15th Feb., 1999, for admission of two additional grounds. But since the counsel for the assessee pleaded for withdrawal of the additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal, the same are dismissed as such.2. As far as the other grounds are concerned, we have heard the assessee's counsel as well as the learned departmental Representative and proceed to decide the various issues as underL Ground Nos. (i) to (v) :3. These grounds are against the determination of appellant's undisclosed 'income of Rs. 4,05,840 on the basis of seized documents marked as Annexure A- 1.3.1. Before divulging to the arguments advanced by the parti...

Virendra Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2107; (1999)3UPLBEC2318

V. M. Sahai, J. 1. A post of Stenographer grade-I fell vacant in the collectorate of Azamgarh on account of retirement of one Shri Mahadeo Prasad on 31.7.89. Another vacancy of Stenographer grade-II was created under the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhanpur, Azamgarh. The respondents on 3.9.89 advertised in the news paper 'Aaj' for filling up the vacancy of Stenographer grade-I and grade-II by direct recruitment. The advertisement permitted that even those candidates could applywhose names were not registered in the employment exchange. The candidates were further informed that they should be personally present with their testimonials, etc. on 5.9.89 at 10 a.m. as their tests may be held at 12 p.m. on the same day. The petitioner was not registered in the employment exchange. He applied for direct recruitment. The respondent No. 4 constituted a selection committee under Rule 16 of the U. P. District Office (Collectorate) Clerk Grade Service Rules, 1980 (in brief rules). The test for di...

Deepak Mishra and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1999CriLJ4123

ORDERO.P. Garg, J.1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicants-Deepak Mishra and Kashi Nath Mishra who are suspect/involved in Case Crime No. Nil 99 under Section 135, Customs Act, P.S. D.R.I., Varanasi, District Varanasi have prayed that their arrest be stayed with reference to alleged recovery of contraband items. It is further prayed that the applicants' statements be directed to be recorded in the presence of their advocate.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri B. K. Singh, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Varanasi.3. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Additional Standing Counsel, Govt. of India, for opposite party No. 2.4. To begin with it may be mentioned that the first prayer of the petitioners cannot be granted as an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not legally maintainable. During the investigation of the case the arrest of the applicants cannot be stayed. In this connectio...

L.M.L. Limited Vs. E.S.i. Corpn. Through Its Regional Director and L.M ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (2000)ILLJ195All

Sudhir Narain, J.1. The provisions of Employees State Insurance Act were extended to the employees of the petitioner with effect from January 1, 1997. In between many events occurred which are not relevant for the disposal of this appeal, For quite some time deduction of the contribution of employers as well as employees were suspended. The Insurance Corporation made a demand. The petitioner directly approached this Court. The learned single Judge by the impugned order, making certain observations directed the petitioner to approach the Insurance Court. While passing this direction the Court ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,15,18,951/- on or before June 30, 1999 as a condition precedent for filing of the appeal.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The main grievance canvassed before us is that when the petitioner is directed to avail of the statutory remedy, the learned single Judge ought not to have made any observation touching the merit of the matt...