Allahabad Court December 2002 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.
Majnoo Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC430
S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the decree of the first appellate court, whereby allowing the defendant's appeal, the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff has been reversed, the plaintiff-appellant has now approached this Court in second appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the decree passed by the first appellate court and restoration of the decree passed by the trial court. 4. A learned single Judge had, vide the order dated 16.9.1996,framed the following substantial questions of law which were found to have arisen in this appeal for consideration :(i) Whether, the appellate court came to a proper finding regarding the application of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the facts of the present case. (ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, it could have been inferred that the lease was for manufacturing purpose. 5. The facts in brief shorn of detail and necessary for...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Advocate General and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC499; (2003)1UPLBEC378
Y.R. Tripathi, J.1. These special appeals raising common questions of law and facts arise out of the judgment and order dated 20th August, 2001 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17432 of 1999, Rajesh Sharma v. Advocate General, U. P. and Ors., whereby he having partly allowed the writ petition has set aside the selection of Shri K. K. Shastri, respondent No. 2 to the writ petition, on the post of Routine Grade Clerk/Typist in the State Law Officers Establishment and has given a direction that the vacancy caused as a consequence of setting aside selection of Shri K. K. Shastri be filled from the next candidate in the merit list and if the next in the merit list is not available or does not choose to take appointment, then from next to next in the merit list.2. Skeleton facts necessary to get hang of the real controversy as also to appreciate the discussions hereinafterare that there were certain vacancies of Routine Grade Clerks/Typists in the...
Committee of Management, Wesley Inter College Vs. District Inspector o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC954
Vineet Saran, J. 1. Heard Sri A. D. Saunders, learned counsel for thepetitioner, as well as learned standing counsel and Sri S. P. Pandey for the respondents.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 5.6.2002, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, appointing the respondent No. 2, Girish Chandra Srivastava 'Khare' as officiating Principal of the college and also attesting his signatures. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent No. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, to approve and attest the signature of the candidate recommended by the petitioner, Committee of Management as officiating Principal of the Institution.3. It is the case of the petitioner that Wesley Inter College, Azamgarh, is a Christian Minority Institution run by the petitioner, Committee of Management. In March, 2002, the regular Principal of the college resigned and the petitioner appointed one Pradeep Shepherd as t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.D. Qureshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]264ITR319(All)
1. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal and Sri A. N. Mahajan appeared for the Department. The assessee has been served notice but none has appeared.2. This is an income-tax reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in pursuance of the direction of the High Court. The following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the incomes of the two periods could not be clubbed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Department's view that there was only a change in the constitution of the firm and that only one single assessment was justified in view of the provisions of Section 187(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is correct in law ?' 3. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The firm consisted of three partners and two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. After December 17, 1975, both...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Pushpawati Devi Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)569
1. Sri Bharatji Agarwal is present for the Department and Sri V.K. Upadhyaya is present for the assessee.2. There is an application under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 in which the following questions of law have been referred to us :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the depreciation, which was not a liability shown in the balance sheet be deducted while valuing the unquoted shares under Rule 1D of WT Rules ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing that arrears of dividend on cumulative preference shares be allowed as a deduction for the purpose of valuation of shares under Rule 1D of the WT Rules ?'The relevant assessment year is 1976-77.3. In Bharat Hati Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) it has been held that in view of Rule 1D of the WT Rules the assessee's method of valuation of unquoted shares cannot be approved if it is not in accordance with Rule 1D. Only the deductions mentioned in the rule can be deducted from the valuation. Arrears of di...
Cit Vs. A.D. Qureshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN612(All)
ORDERSri Bharat Ji Agrawal and Sri A.N. Mahajan appeared for the department. Assessee has been served notice but none has appeared.2. This is an income-tax reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in pursuance of direction of the High Court. Following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the department's view that there was only a change in the constitution of the first and that only one single assessment was justified in view of the provisions of section 187(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is correct in law ?'3. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The firm consisted of three partners and two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. After 17-12-1975 the...
Cit Vs. Jai Prakash Vaish
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN245(All)
Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan for the department and Sri. P.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri Bharatji Agarwal for the assessee.2. This is an Income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In which following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 25,257 received by the deceased assessee on his retirement in view of accumulated Earned Leave amounting to 471 days could be taxed as his income for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 ?2. If the answer to the question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the said income was taxable under the head 'Income from salary' and/or the provisions of section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be attracted in the present case ?'3. Assessee is the deceased Jai Prakash Vaish whose legal heir is Sunil Kumar an individual of Muzaffarnagar. The relevant assessment year was 1975-76 an...
Cit Vs. Ram Babu Kapoor Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN250(All)
This is an Income Tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In which following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that it was not the case of a change in the constitution of the firm and that the income of the two periods could not be clubbed ?2.Whetlier on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it can be said that the assessee was entitled to registration in respect of both the periods ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The firm consisted of 8 partners including one Bhana Mal who died on 2-2-1975. In the original partnership deed there is no mention that on the death of a partner the firm will continue in existence, hence in view of section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, the firm stood automatically dissolved on the death of a partner. Hence, it is a case of dissolution of the firm and not re-constitution...
Cwt Vs. Smt. Pushpawati Devi Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN252(All)
Sri Bharatji Agarwal is present for the department and Sri V.K. Upadhyaya is present for the assessee.2. There is an application under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in which the following questions of law has been referred to us :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the depreciation, which was not a liability shown in the Balance Sheet be deducted while valuing the unquoted shares under rule ID of Wealth Tax Rules ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing that arrears of dividend on Cumulative preference shares be allowed as a deduction for the purpose of valuation of shares under rule ID of the Wealth Tax RulesThe relevant assessment year is 1976-77.3. In Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1979) 118 ITR 58 it has been held that in view of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules the assessee's method of valuation of unquoted shares cannot be approved if it is not in accordance with rule 1D. Only the deductions mentioned in the rule can be deducted from the v...
Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC444
M. Katju and Yatindra Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had been granted a licence for distillery in Bijnor by the Central Government on 19.5.1956 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition for manufacture and sale of country liquor, Indian made foreign liquor, and alcohol. Thereafter he was granted P.D. 2 licence by the Excise Commissioner, U. P. vide Annexure-2 to the petition. By order dated 18.9.1991, Annexure-4 to the petition. Clauses 2 and 3 of the P.D. 2 licence were deleted. Petitioner filed application dated 24.9.1991 for recalling of the order, dated 18.9.1991 vide Annexure-5 to the petition. By order dated 5.10.1991, that application was rejected by the Excise Commissioner. The petitioner filed two applications before the U. P. Government through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department, dated 29.5.1998 and 28.7.1999 vide Annexures-10 and 11 to the petition. These applications have not yet been disposed of. 3. In paragraph 15 of the counter-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »