Allahabad Court December 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Sardar Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR384(All)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87 passed on August 4, 1999.2. The assessee is a registered firm and in the relevant assessment year it was required to obtain a copy of the audit report as per the requirement of Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The specified date for obtaining the audit report was October 31, 1986, which was the extended date fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the audit report on September 9, 1986, which was within the extended time. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that the provision for penalty was not attracted. Moreover, the words 'without reasonable cause' have been deleted from Section 271B by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986, with effect from September 10, 1986. In the relevant assessment year the aforesaid words were there and the assessee had given ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokul Prasad Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1393
S.P. Mchrotra, J. 1. Supplementary-affidavit filed today be taken on record.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the learned VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad (Appellate Authority) and the judgment and order dated 11.3.1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.2. The dispute relates to a shop and a godown situated behind the shop on the ground floor of premises No. 25B, Mutthiganj, Allahabad. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as the 'disputed accommodation'.3. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner for the r...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radha Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC2219; [2003(96)FLR964]; (2003)1UPLBEC395
S. P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, Shri Sudhir Agarwal the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 as well as the learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner, who had been appointed on the post of temporary Munsif, on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, made on the basis of the competitive examination held in the year 1993, on 22.7.1985 has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.1998 passed by the State Government terminating her services exercising the jurisdiction contemplated under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, indicating that the services of the petitioner were no longer required. 4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. 5. Pursuant ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Metal Industries Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN593(All)
ORDERThis is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of borrowed capital having regard to the provisions of section 80J as amended by Finance Act (No. 2) of 1980 ?'2. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1979-80, The petitioner filed a return claiming the benefit under section 80J of the Income Tax Act and the question involved is whether borrowed capital is to be included in the total capital employed by the assessee for getting relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act. It has been held in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) that borrowed capital cannot be included in the self-employed capital for getting relief under section 80J.3. In the circumstances of the case the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Brij Nandan Prasad Deen Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN594(All)
ORDERThis is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 13-5-1980 was invalid and hence not sustainable in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c), Income Tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and the relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The present dispute relates to penalty, which has been imposed on the assessee. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty but his order was set aside by the Tribunal on the strength of judgments of this court in CIT v. Om Sons : [1979]116ITR...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Lala Narendra Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN590(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.This is an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in which the following question was sought to be referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Wealth Tax Officer to consider the applicability of rule 1 BB of the Wealth Tax Rules including sub-clause (5) of the said rule 1 BB to the facts of the assessee's case and then to dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Biju Patnaik WT Appeal Nos. 614 to 624 of (Del) of 1979, dated 17-2-1981)'It appears from the statement of the case that the Tribunal has referred various aspects of above question and framed five questions which are mentioned in the statement of the case. A perusal of the same shows that they are really aspects of the same question which was sought to be referred.2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan K...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC435; (2003)1UPLBEC328
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition and Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2002 as well as Writ Petition No. 43 of 1989 involve a similar question and hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. We have heard Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first two petitions and Sri K.L. Grover in the third, learned standing counsel for the State of U. P. and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal for respondent No. 4 in the first petition. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act which had borrowed money from the petitioner State Bank of India as stated in paragraphs 5 to 11 of the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 had also given a letter of undertaking to the petitioner not to create any charge over the properties and assets which have been mortgaged and hypothecated. True copy of the hypothecation agreement is Annexure-2 to the writpetition. True copies o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidatio ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC943
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In both these petitions, common questions of lawand fact are Involved. They are also directed against the same orders passed by the authorities below in the case relating to same property (in Writ Petition No. 24110 of 2001 only order dated 19.6.2001, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged while in Writ Petition No. 24875 of 2001 said order dated 19.6.2001, as well as order dated 12.1.2001, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have been challenged). Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 24110 of 2001 shall be the leading case.2. Dispute relates to Khata Nos. 118, 130, 31 and 115 of village Chandayan, district Rampur, for short 'the land in dispute'. In the basic year, . the land in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners (Khata No. 118 was recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1, Khata No, 130 in the name of petitioner No. 2, Khata No. 31 in the name of petitioner No. 3 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Shanker Gupta Alias Pappoo Vs. Additional District and Sessions Ju ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1376
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 17.10.2002 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Dehat in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 1999.2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Jawahar Nagar Kasba Ghatampur, district Kanpur Dehat, thedetails whereof have been given in the release application, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as 'the disputed shop'.3. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent No. 2 had earlier filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner for the release of the disputed shop on 3.6.1993. The said release application was filed by the respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleging that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Kumar Devnath Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2725
M.C. Jain, J. 1. Appellant Uttam Kumar Devnath has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by Judgment dated 23-1-1986 passed by Sri P.K. Dikshit, the then Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 1985. The charge was that he murdered his own wife Smt. Kajal.2. Shortly stated, the material facts leading to this appeal are these. The deceased Smt. Kajal was the wife of appellant and both of them used to live in the compound of Madan Mohan Ji Ghera, P.S. Vridavan, District Mathura. He committed her murder by strangulation on 25-5-1985 at about 2p.m. in his house in which both of them resided on rent. The report was lodged the same day at 3.30 p.m. by PW 2 Karen Adhikari having got it scribed by PW 1 Sanatan Kishore Goswami. Karen Adhikari is the husband of the cousin sister of the deceased and lived in the same locality a little distance away. About 4-5 months before the incident also, the couple had quarrelled and on learning about it, PW ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »