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.
Deepak Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC450; (2003)1UPLBEC293
ORDERM. Katju and Yatindra Singh, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Singh appeared for the respondents.2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dated 31.10.2002, Annexure-10 to the petition. The petitioner claims appointment under dying-in-harness rules. When he was not granted appointment, he filed an original application, which was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1991, i.e., about 11 years ago. It is settled law that compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness rules should not be given after long years of the death of the father vide Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana. 1994 (4) SCC 138, S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1998 (9) SCC 485, H. S. Srivastava v. State of U. P., 1990 (1) UPLBEC 220, U.P.S.R.T.C. v. A.K. Misra, 1995 (1) UPLBEC 21, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, 1997 (3) UPLBEC 2947 (SC), Haryana State Electricity...
Kailash Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR322(All)
1. Heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pra-kash Krishna for the department.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated July 19, 1984, annexure 2 to the petition. In this petition we are only concerned with the claim of waiver of interest under Section 139(8) which has been denied by the Commissioner.3. The Commissioner has stated in his order that the Income-tax Officer has stated in his report that the disclosure by the assessee was voluntary prior to the issue of any notice and it was done in good faith. The assessee also cooperated during the assessment proceedings.4. It is well settled that if the conditions in Clause (c) of Section 273A(1) of the Income-tax Act are fulfilled, the Commissioner must give some relief to the petitioner, though he has discretion in granting either total waiver or partial waiver depending on the facts of the case, but he canno...
Anand Mohan Sharma Vs. Niranjan Lal Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC578
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate appearing along with Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey for the appellant and Sri Arjun Singhal appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23rd October, 2002 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 35613 of 2002. Niranjan Lal Gupta v. District Magistrate, Allahabad and Anr., allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are ; father of respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of accommodation of which appellant was tenant. The release application was rejected by Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 13th January, 1987. A revision was filed against the above order which too was dismissed vide order dated 20th November, 1990. Father of respondent No. 1, late Sri Kundan La...
U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. and ors. Vs. P.S. Mi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003All123; 2003(2)ARBLR102(All); 2003(3)AWC1763
Pradeep Kant, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and formal order dated 14-3-2002 passed by District Judge, Lucknow rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the District Judge, Lucknow has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application.2. The only question involved in the appeal is as to whether the Court of District Judge, Lucknow was having jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act at Lucknow against the award pronounced by the Arbitrator in view of the following clause of the agreement :'33. 'In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising out of the contract between the parties with regard to the interpretation of working or this agreement or the rights, liabilities or duties arising out of it or otherwise in connection within the contract, the matter shall be referred ...
Satish Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC729; (2003)1UPLBEC408
Pradeep Kant, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. L. P. Misra, learned counsel for the University and Sri Devendra Arora, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner, who is presently posted as Registrar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, being aggrieved by an order of suspension dated 2nd November, 2002, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Rule 36 of the U. P. State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Centralised Service Rules), the petitioner could not be placed under suspension, as these Rules do not vest any power with the State Government to suspend a member of the Centralised Service. U. P. State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975, have been enacted by the Governor under the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the U, P. State Universi...
Subhash Chandra Pandey and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1328; (2003)1UPLBEC548
G.P. Mathur, A.C.J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed for quashing the result of U. P. Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examinations, conducted by U. P. Public Service Commission in the years 2001 and 2002. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31362 of 2002, the main challenge is to the preliminary examination of the year 2002 and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31179 of2002, the challenge is to Mains examination conducted in the year 2002. A further prayer has been made that the U. P. Public Service Commission be directed to declare the result of the aforesaid examinations on the basis of actual marks secured by the candidates without applying the formula of scaling.2. The U. P. Public Service Commission (for short Commission) conducts an examination known as U. P. Combined State/Upper Subordinate Examination for the purpose of selecting candidates for Provincial Civil Services and Allied services and also for Upper Subordinate services. The...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United TIn Factory
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]263ITR178(All)
Yatindra Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri R. S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the Department. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following two questions have been referred to us : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to assess the income (Vishwanath Seth v. CIT : [1984]146ITR249(All) ) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was not the case of mere change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a firm and it was constituted up to February 8, 1978, with the following partners : 1. Shri Ramanand Negotia ; 2. Smt. Shakuntla ; 3. Smt. Urmila ; 4. Smt. Shanti Devi; 5. Smt. Pramod Kumar. 3. The firm was dissolved and on February 9, 1979, a new firm w...
Dr. Gaur Hari Yadupati Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(All)568
Yatindra Singh, J.1. Heard Shri R.S. Agarwal for the assessee and Shri Bhartji Agarwal and Sri A.N. Mahajan for the Department.2. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the WT Act and the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the view that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 6,43,625 representing the notional amount of capital gains tax?'3. This question has been considered by the Supreme Court in its decision Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . A Division Bench of our own High Court in Shripati Singhai v. CWT : [1996]220ITR258(All) after considering the aforesaid Supreme Court decision has held that, 'while for working out the fair market value of the assets for inclusion in the assessee's net wealth under the WT Act, 1957, deduction cannot be allowed of the estimated notional capital gains tax in the event of sale of tho...
Cwt Vs. Smt. Vibha Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN592(All)
ORDERYatindra Singh, J.Heard Sri R.S. Agarwal for the assessee and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal and Sri A.N. Mahajan for the department.2. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who has directed the Wealth Tax Officer to accept the value of the unquoted equity shares of M/s. Indian Textile Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Banaras House Ltd. arrived at by the Chartered Accountant which is based on rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, while in calculating the value of these shares, deductions have been made for liabilities on account of gratuity and tax provision ?'For the sake of convenience we are refraining the above question into two issues:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the value of the unquoted equity shares of M...
Dr. Garu Hari Yadupati Singhania Vs. Cwt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN247(All)
Yatindra Singh J.Heard Shri R.S. Agarwal for the assessee and Shri Bhartji Agarwal and Sri A.N. Mahajan for the department.2. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act and the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the view that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 6,43,625 representing the notional amount of capital gains tax ?'3. This question has been considered by the Supreme Court in its decision Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . A Division Bench of our own High Court in Shripati Singhai v. CWT : [1996]220ITR258(All) after considering the aforesaid Supreme Court decision has held that, I while for working out the fair market value of the assets for inclusion in the assessee's net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, deduction cannot be allowed of the estimated notional capital gains tax in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »