Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)87ITD649(All.)
1. The appeal is directed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 28-2-1995. The following grounds of appeal have been taken: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that the figures of total receipts were changed only on being pointed out by the department with reference to his bank account and thus he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the real income. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact the figures of expenses were changed in such a way that total income and tax incidence are not increased.The third and fourth grounds of appeal are in the nature of arguments and are not repeated here. The assessee is an unregistered firm. The assessee is a labour contractor and has done the work of loading and unloading and also transportation of goods form one plant to another. The original return of income was filed on 18th May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
1. These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A), Varanasi dt. 10th Jan., 2002, for the asst.yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1997-98 and are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.These appeals were taken up by this Bench on 5th April, 2002, as the Registry has received copy of order dt. 21st March, 2002, of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter. It was directed by the High Court to the Tribunal to decide the aforesaid appeals very expeditiously preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. As per above direction, we have preponed hearing and started hearing appeals from 17th April, 2002, on priority.2. The notices under Section 148 were issued for the asst. yrs.1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 on 1st Aug., 1997, and as mentioned by the AO notices were served on 5th Aug., 1997. Notices under Section 142(1) requiring assessee to file return for asst. yr. 1997-98 was issued by ITO, Azamga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC2968; [2002(94)FLR1051]; (2002)3UPLBEC2735
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner M/s. Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. have filed this writ petition challenging the award of the labour court dated 31.10.1998, whereby the labour court held that the workmen are entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of wages. 2. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 4K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute to the labour court for adjudication : vfHkfu.kZ; okn la- 66@93 ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk visu Jfedczt dqekj iq= Jh ?kklhjke] gsYij dh fnukad 9-7-1987 ls lsok;sa lekIr fd;k tkukmfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rkslacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr ** AvfHkfu.kZ; okn la- 67@93 ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius JfedubZe [kk iq= Jh fnus [kk] pijklh dh fnukad 9-7-1987 ls lsok;sa lekIr fd;ktkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha] rkslacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks'k fjyhQikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.klfgr** AvfHkfu.kZ;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2513; (2002)2UPLBEC1952
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. This bunch of five writ petitions is directed against the judgment dated 12.2.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition] delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, (hereinafter called as 'C.A.T.') in five connected original application numbers (hereinafter called as 'O.A.') 1038 of 1998. 1012 of 1998. 789 of 1999, 802 of 1999, 812 of 1999 which were disposed of by the common judgment dated 12.2.2001, aforesaid.2. These five O.A. Nos, mentioned above, were filed by the employees of Bharat Sanchar Nigam,which had cancelled their selection and appointment to the post of Stenographer. Grade III, in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. True copy of the O.A. filed by the respondent No. 1, is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.3. The applicant employees prayed before the Tribunal that the order of cancellation of their selections/appointments as Stenographers. Grade III be quashed.4. The relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement No. 3 of 1993 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2203
S. Harkauli and Rakcsh Ttwari, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel forthe-parties. 2. We have been noticing from a large number of cases that the consumers have applied for permanent disconnection to the respondents and the respondents have not made permanent disconnection on the excuse that the permanent disconnection charges have not been deposited, although the consumers do not require the electricity, but for some months they are harassing them by continuing future billing. 3. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents to collect the statistics of U. P. and file the same before us by way of counter-affidavit mentioning therein as to how many disconnection applications are pending for more than one month in the past one year. They will also state in the counter-affidavit why a mandamus should not be issued with immediate demand of permanent disconnection by any consumer, permanent disconnection must be done within three days by the officers of the department and any permanent dis-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC2493
S. Harkauli and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. It was claimed by the petitioner that he was not issued the pass-book on the basis of which fixed charges are payable by such power-consumer. It does not appear from the records that the petitioner raised this kind of dispute or entered into any kind of correspondence since 1997 or 1998 when the electric connection was given to the petitioner. This dispute has been raised by the petitioner at a very belated stage after the demand was raised by the respondents. Also after four years, the respondents are not likely to have detailed record as to whether passbook was Issued four years ago or not. In the circumstances, the respondents have stated in the impugned order dated 25.5.2002 that the petitioner has not furnished the proof that he has not received the pass-book. He may obtain duplicate pass-book on payment of Rs. 10 only. This observation cannot be seriously faulted.3. However, since the power connecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2003]129STC323(All)
1. In view of the circular of the Trade Tax Commissioner, the form XXXI if applied has to be issued either on the same date or on the next date.2. According to the petitioners, they have applied for form XXXI but form XXXI has not been supplied for the past one month and matter is pending.. 3, Half of the corruption arises from this practice by the official in keeping the file pending. If the form XXXI had been refused, giving reasons the matter could be agitated further by the petitioner.4. In the circumstances, this tactics of sitting over the files, keeping the matters pending without any reason has to be severely dealt with and therefore it is directed that the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (respondent No. 2) will personally look into the matter as to why the application for form XXXI moved by the petitioner has not been decided by the concerned officer after almost one month. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, will ensure that a decision is taken on the application of the petitioner for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3088
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the proceedings before the Dealers Selection Board, Lucknow-II, initiated on the basis of review petition dated 4.2.2002, filed by respondent No. 4, and the notice dated 5.2.2002, issued to the petitioner may be quashed.2. The Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement on 28.6.2000 inviting applications for appointment as dealers for retail outlet for petrol and diesel in various places including Srinagar, District Mahoba. The Dealers Selection Board held interview of the aspirants who had responded to the advertisement and, thereafter, prepared a merit list of the selected candidates. In the said list, Brijesh Kumar Misra, respondent No. 4, was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the petitioner, Vijai Bahadur Singh, was placed at Sl. No. 2. The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No. 4 by filing a representation on the ground that he was not a domicile or permanent resident of...
Tag this Judgment!