Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)86ITD516(All.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II, Varanasi dated 27-11-1997 for the block period from 1st April, 1986 to 3rd November, 1996 for the assessment year 1987-88 to 1997-98 passed under Sections 158BC and 158BA of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee has filed this appeal on as many as 22 grounds of appeal. However, during the course of the proceedings assessee filed the consized grounds of appeal as per Appellate Tribunal Rules. The consized grounds of appeal are reproduced for the sake of convenience, which are as under:-- 1. Because the block assessment order dated 27-11-1997 as has been made under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is wholly illegal, as (i) no valid search or seizure operations can be said to have been carried out against the appellant assessee which is pre-requisite for applicability of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B. (ii) the provisions of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2002All362
ORDER1. Despite order dated 11-3-2002 no counter-affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances we stay the realization in pursuance of the impugned recovery dated 9-12-1999.2. We would further like to mention that in a large number of writ petitions and other cases in this Court counter-affidavits are not being filed by the respondent authorities within the time granted by the Court and very often they are not being filed at all despite several opportunities given by the Court for filing counter-affidavit. In the present case on 11-3-2002 learned Standing Counsel was granted four seeks time to file counter-affidavit but what to say of four weeks more than five months have expired but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel states that the office had sent the letter to the respondent along with copy of the writ petition but no one came to file the counter-affidavit. This is a regrettable state of affairs and must be rectified because it is the State which suffers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3215
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. The respondent No. 6 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8375 of 2002 has filed this review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 16.3.2002. The review petition has been filed not on account of any error in the judgment but on account of subsequent amendment in the Legislation. 2. The election to elect the Committee of Management of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur, which is an Urban Cooperative Bank and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act was held on 28.12.1998 and a Board of Directors was elected. The Board of Directors in its meeting held on 29.12.1998elected the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the relevant time, provided that the term of every Committee of Management shall be three years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee. Sub-section (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3272
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners sought for the following reliefs :'(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 passed by opposite party No. 1. (b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government to extend the said benefit from the date other institutions who have been published in the list dated 16.12.1998 receiving the grant-in-aid from the Government Exchequer. (c) Issue by writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (d) award cost of petition in favour of the petitioners.' 2. Apart from the aforesaid reliefs, petitioners sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.9.1999, Annexure-26 to the writ petition, whereby the State of U. P. in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court vide its order dated 18.1.1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1999 as well as by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3275
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 2.8.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) terminating the dealership of the petitioner in respect of petrol pumps at Hari Parvat, Delhi Gate, Agra and Keetham, Agra. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the Director, C.B.I.. New Delhi to hold an enquiry regarding the alleged attack by the officers of the respondent No. 1 Corporation along with personal security guards and local police of the U. P. on the petrol and diesel pumps of the petitioners which are running for the last 40 years.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. On 13.1.1971, an agreement was signed between the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., Delhi and with Prakash Narayan Gupta and Shri Tarlochan Singh Chaudhary vide Annexure-1 to the petition. By this agreement, the company granted licence from 1.1.1970 to enter upon the premises in question and to use the Motor Spirit and/or H.S.D. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(160)ELT80(All)
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondent i.e., the State of U.P. and the Union of India to release his Maruti Car. No. DDC 5513 in his favour by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, which on his statement (as contained in Annexure 4) was purchased by him for Rs. 66,000/- in the year 1988 from Dr. Arun Singhal of Samli. 2. Firstly the facts pleaded by the petitioner :-- His aforementioned Car was intercepted at 7.45 p.m. of 3rd January, 1989 at Nanuata on Delhi Saharanpur Road by the Customs and Central Excise Officers of Saharanpur Division on suspicion that some persons were carrying contraband gold in it. Four persons, namely, Ashok Kumar Agarwal son of Keshav Ram, Sunil Kumar son of Rameshwar Prasad, Sanjiv Kumar Jain son of Vakil Chandra Jain and Kishore Kumar, the driver of the vehicle, were said to be seated in the vehicle. Even though the petitioner was not said to be present in his vehicle yet proceedings were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003CriLJ163
ORDERS.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This reference under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was registered by the order of Chief Justice dated 1-8-1996 on the request of the then District Magistrate Hamirpur made through letter dated 27th April, 1996.2. In a suit instituted under Sections 229B/209/202 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, an order was passed on 14-12-1991 in exercise of power under Section 229-B which was made absolute on 12-2-1992 in case No. 334/123/35 of 1986-87 Nagar Palika Rath v. Ayodhya Prasad and others. It is alleged in the reference that Bihari Lal, Amar kumar and Arvind have willfully disobeyed the orders dated 14-12-1990 and 12-2-1992 passed by S.D.M. in which they were restrained from using the water of pond in dispute for irrigation or altering the shape of the pond. It transpires from the record, that notices have not yet been issued to the Opp. Parties.3. Heard Sri Satish Chand Rai, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. In the light of the materials on record and the submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003ACJ782
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the separate orders and judgment dated 15.4.2002 given in M.A.C.P. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1994. The appellant Sanjai Singh is son of Rajendra Singh and both allege to have received injuries in the same accident and, therefore, both the appeals are being decided by a common order. F.A.F.O. No. 798 of 2002 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 86 of 1994 (Rajendra Singh v. Vinita Yadav) shall be treated as the leading case.2. The case set-up by the claimant was that at about 10 a.m. on 9.11.93 Rajendra Singh and his son Sanjai Singh were going towards Bulandshahr on a Vicky when they were hit by an Ambassador car which was being driven rashly and negligently. Both the claimants alleged to have received injuries in the accident and they were rushed to a private clinic but the doctor referred them to Delhi where they were treated in Hindu Rao Hospital. The claim petition was contested by the owners of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3273
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on 24.8.1973 as a teacher in Urdu subject under a scheme known as Half Million Job, for teaching in Primary School, Daraganj, Allahabad. He worked upto 2nd November, 1976 and thereafter, he sought leave w.e.f. 3.11.1976 to 26.12.1976 but could not attend his duties as he was ill. It is alleged that he applied for medical leave. He further states that he moved applications from time to time for extension of leave. The petitioner avers that after he regained his health and recovered from effect of paralysis and reported for duties on 9.12.1991, but his salary was not paid. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad, called for a report from Shiksha Adhikari Nagar Kshettra, Allahabad, regarding the period of absence of the petitioner for about 15 years. The report was submitted on 13.4.1992 but it is alleged that no decision was taken about payment of his salary. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993. This petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3109
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Petitioner, the erstwhile Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works Pvt. Limited (hereinafter called as the Secretary) carries on the business of manufacturing crystal sugar by vacuum pan process, situated at Khadda, district Deoria, After the acquisition of the Mill by U. P. State Sugar Corporation (hereinafter called as the Corporation), it became its unit and respondent No. 1 became employee of the Corporation. In the service records of the Sugar Factory, the date of birth of respondent No. 1 was 7.4.1926, Accordingly, he was toattain the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years on 7.4.1986.3. Before his superannuation, respondent No. 1 was given a notice dated 19/27.9.1986 under Clause LL (4) of the standing orders informing him that he would retire from service on 31.10.1986. A representation was made by the respondent workman to the Labour Commissioner, U. P. Kanpur, challenging the retirement notice given by the Gen...
Tag this Judgment!