Allahabad Court January 2002 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. U.P. Hotel Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD443(All.)
1. The Revenue has filed ITA No. 207/All/1996 against the order of the CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 16th Oct., 1995, for asst. yr. 1984-85 against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and has raised the following ground : "1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 5,10,000 under Section 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO, without appreciating that the assessee concealed the particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in respect of amount of Rs. 7,82,728 written off under the head flood/fire rescue account and made wrong claim of depreciation on boiler amounting to Rs. 55,841 and these two additions have been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as per order dt. 24th Aug., 1995, and the assessee has not filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Department's view is fully supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Finance Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 67...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kishan and anr. Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Agra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC751
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel. Perused the averments made in the writ petition.2. Without delineating the facts in detail the present writ petition deserves to be allowed on the admitted facts between the parties.3. Indisputably, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Agra Division, Agra. While admitting the appeal, the Divisional Commissioner. Agra Division. Agra, had granted an ad-interim stay order on 17.4.2001 holding that the lease of the petitioners is valid up to 2.7.2002, therefore, they are entitled to extract sand from the land in dispute till their lease is valid. The aforesaid ad-interim stay order was granted by appellate authority after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides. Subsequently, on 22.1.2002 the appellate authority instead of deciding the appeal on merits, vacated the ad-interim stay order dated 17.4,2001 reducing the period of entitlement of petitioners to...
Tag this Judgment!Faujdar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1012
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. One of the questions which has arisen in the writ petition is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') can directly hear the revision against an order passed under Section 9A of the Act. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner Sri R. N. Singh is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no Jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 48 of the Act directly against the order passed under Section 9A. He has submitted that there is provision of appeal under Section 11 of the Act, hence revision can neither be filed nor can be entertained by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In support of his submission the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions :(1) Damodar Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad and others, 1996 AWC (Suppl) 158 ; 1995 RD 534.(2) Santos...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Kumar Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1103
A. K. Yog, J. 1. Heard Sri R. P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri Pankaj Mithal learned counsel appearing for the caveator-applicant respondent No. 2 landlord. 2. The date chart annexed with the petition shows that Vipin Prakash Agarwal owner of the building in question within the municipal limit of the city of Bulandshahr was the owner and the accommodation in question was assessed for the first time on 1.4.1970 (as is evident from the impugned order that there is nosuch assessment on record to fix the day and month of the year 1970). The petitioner contends that he occupied the accommodation in question as tenant with an agreement and consent of the erstwhile owner Vipin Prakash Agarwal. 3. The said owner, however, sold the property consisting of the accommodation in question on 28.8.1999. The petitioner further contends that erstwhile owner Vipin Prakash Agarwal continuously accepted the rent, but the subsequent purchaser (present landlord respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2905
J.C. Gupta, J.1. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 12.5.2000 and 24.8.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad respectively. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Complaint of Case No. 3386 of 1997, Dabur India Ltd. v. B.S.I. Ltd. and Ors., and entire proceedings initiated on the basis of the said complaint, which are pending before I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.2. The Court has heard Mr. P.K. Sinha for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and S/Sri D.S. Tiwari, H.N. Mehrotra and Shankar Suan for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.3. The relevant facts are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for proceeding against them under Section 420, I.P.C. and Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act. After recording statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and holding ...
Tag this Judgment!NizamuddIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2065
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel Sri J. Lal has appeared for the Union of India.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 15-6-2001 passed under the National Security Act. Several points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner but we are of the opinion that the very first point is sufficient to allow this petition.3. The grounds of detention alleged that on 25-5-2001 at about 10.15 a.m. the petitioner and some of his associates who are Muslims attacked one Banwari Giri who is a Hindu with lathis and dandas. One Ram Sahai tried to intervene and he was shot dead by a pistol and this created terror in the area. In our opinion, this is a clear case of law and order and not of public order. No doubt the petitioner and his associates can be proceeded against under the ordinary criminal law but we are of the opinion that it is not a case of public order and hence the detention order is invalid vide T. Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Saran Gupta, Advocate Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, M ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC778
A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Bhagwat Saran Gupta. petitioner and Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent.2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they desire toargue the case as per original pleadings. Supplementary counter-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder-affidavit may be ignored and they shall not be treated as part of record.3. Accordingly, the case is being decided on the basis of petition as the counter and rejoinder-affidavits filed therein.4. Bhagwat Saran Gupta, petitioner is tenant of certain accommodation having his tenancy in the certain premises mentioned in the release application under Section 21(1)(9) of the Act being P.A. Case No. 39 of 1999. Sri Narendra Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 2 has filed an application for allotment of the said accommodation, which was in the tenancy of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has constructed his own house, a copy...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Umapati Upadhyay Vs. Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidya ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC788; (2002)2UPLBEC1311
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the order dated 6.11.2000 passed by the Chancellor, and for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-University to Issue an appointment order to the petitioner as lecturer in Puran-Itihas. The parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as the University) Issued an advertisement on 24.10.1998 for making appointment on several posts. The dispute here is with regard to appointment on two posts of lecturer in Puran-Itihas out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, in all 22 candidates applied for one post which was of unreserved category. A Selection Committee was constituted which met on 1.6.2000 to make selection on the unreserved post of lecturer and it prepared a panel containing three names in w...
Tag this Judgment!Mayur Kattha Industries Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC804
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.6.2001 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to run its unit for manufacturing kattha and grant the licence under the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 (in short the Rules, 1978).2. The version of the petitioner is that it manufactures kattha by processing and cutting khair-wood. It purchases khair-wood from the State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in auctions held by the Government Agencies. Respondent No. 3 started interfering in the manufacturing of kattha by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has no licence for running saw-mill in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978. The petitioner is alleged to have deposited licence fee for the year 1986 to 1995 under the U.P. Saw Mills Rules, 1978 and further deposited licence fee for the period 1996 to 1999. The licence fee...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC781
Sudhir Narain, J. 1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.1.1999, whereby the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 2, rejected theapplication of the petitioner for grant of licence for running saw-mill.2. The petitioner is owner of a saw-mill alleged to be situate in village Dabauliya, Post Banskhor, district Basti. He had a licence for saw-mill obtained from respondent No. 2 in the year 1986 and his licence of saw-mill was renewed up to the year 1991. He deposited fee for renewal of licence for the subsequent period but it was not renewed. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 38139 of 1998. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may file application for grant of new licence or an application for renewal of the old licence if pending and such application shall be disposed of within a month in accordance with law.3. The petitioner submitted representation to respondent No. 2. The said representation has b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »