Allahabad Court January 2003 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.
Cit Vs. Dass Bros.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN599(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following questions of law 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 holding that section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not apply in the instant case and hence a single assessment could not be made on the income for the period 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income Tax Officer to make two separate assessments for the income of the periods 1-4-1979 to 30-6-1979 and 1-7-1979 to 31-3-1980 ?'3. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated 4-7-1977 in which there were two partners, viz., Ashok Kumar and Nirmala Dass. On 1-7-1979 a new deed was drawn up and one Mr...
Cit Vs. Sri Sidh and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN206(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.Heard counsel for the parties.2. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act in which the following question of law 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 holding that where there is a change in the constitution of a firm, two assessments have to be made, one in respect of the income derived before reconstitution and another in respect of the income derived after reconstitution of the firm ?'3. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1979-80. During this assessment year one of the partners Sri Beni Prasad Tandon died on 2-6-1978. According to clause 14 of the partnership deed the firm was not to be dissolved on the death of one of the partners. In view of the decision in CIT v. Empire Estate : [1996]218ITR355(SC) there was no dissolution of the assessee firm. Hence, there has to be a single assessment and not two assessments.4. We,...
Abdul Karim Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC516
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, dated 27.11.2002 by which, by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 29.5.2002 has been maintained.3. There happens to be no dispute on the facts which can be summarised thus. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order on 11.10.1997 under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the basis of reconciliation. Thereafter, de-notification under Section 52 of the Act took place on 15.2.1999. The petitioner filed appeal after the de-notification referred above on 16.4.1999. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the present petitioner that as the appeal has been filed after the de-notification under Section 52 of the Act and, therefore, it is not maintainable and thus...
Dr. Seema Kundra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC520
ORDERM. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner from her present place of posting at State Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Atarra.3. It appears that petitioner was appointed by order dated 16.6.1988 as Medical Officer, at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Talbeahat, Lalitpur. In the year 1990, the petitioner was attached with State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi and was deputed for teaching job vide Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that since then the petitioner is doing teaching job in the college.4. In our opinion, the petitioner has no lien or right to hold the post in the State Ayurvedic College, Varanasi, as she was only attached to that college and hence, she was purely on deputation there. It is settled law that a deputationist has no right to hold the post to which he or she is sent on deputation, vide JT 2000 (6) 574, JT...
Gyan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC525; (2003)IILLJ400All
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.11.1996 vide Annexure-15 to the writ petition and the order dated 15.1.2002, filed on the review petition. The writ petition is belated and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Moreover, a perusal of the Tribunal's order dated 21.11.1996 shows that the petitioner who was working as Khalasi had created terror amongst the co-workers by holding out threats and indulging in hooliganism. It is stated that the employees were so much intimidated by the petitioner that they were afraid of giving evidence in the inquiry against him and hence, it was not practicable to hold an enquiry. The Tribunal in paras 14 and 15 of its order has observed that no person is likely to come forward to depose against a person like the petitioner who is involved in more than one case of murder and threatens his superiors with dire consequences. The Tribunal has relied on the d...
Ramji Vs. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)AWC793
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. Challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, dated 22.11.2002 by which the approval as was given for fisheries rights in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and disapproval in respect to the claim of fisheries rights in favour of the opposite party was also maintained.3. The claim of the petitioner relates to grant of the lease for fishing rights for a period of ten years. It is claimed that initially resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner which was recommended also by the Tehsildar on 12.9.2001 that petitioner be given the lease for fishing purpose in the pond in question at a premium of Rs. 1,020 per annum. Recommendation/claim relates to two ponds, i.e., Pond No. 202 Gha (238 air) and 275 (530 air). The recommendation in favour of the petitioner was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 16.9.2001 against which the responden...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karam Chand Goel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR391(All)
M. Katju, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the instant reference the following questions of law have been referred to us for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of Rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that for the purposes of deduction under Section 80J the amount of borrowed moneys and debts owed by the assessee should be included in the capital employed 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that while computing the capital employed, half of the profits earned by the unit should be added ?' 2. Sri Bharatji Agarwal has put in appearance for the Department but none has appeared for the assessee although an affidavit of service has been filed. 3. The relevant assessment years are 1975-...
Sri NaraIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4954
1. This appeal was filed on behalf of Sri Narain, Ram Parwesh, Thagai, Ghisiyawan and Hari Nath. Sri Narain was convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC and the remaining accused were convicted under Sections 147, 323/149 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were, however, sentenced under Section 147 IPC for 6 months' R.I., under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC for 6 months' R.I. and under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for life imprisonment.2. The prosecution story as adumbrated in the F.I.R., in brief, is that the accused and the deceased party are collaterals. They came from the same family tree of Sheo Govind, their ancestor. Sheo Govind has two sons Gobardhan and Gopi. Gobardhan has four sons viz. Sri Narain, Ghisiyawan, Ram Pravesh and Thagai. All of them were accused in this case. Gopi himself was injured in the case. His son Lalji died in the incident in the hospital as a consequence to the injuries suffered. His sons Keshawa and Parasnath are injur...
Cit Vs. Paramount Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN601(All)
M. Katju, J.This is an income-tax reference under section 256(1) of the Income 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was an industrial company engaged in the manufacture and processing of brass-ware articles and was entitled to the benefits claimed by it in the matter of taxationThe relevant assessment year is 1977-78'.2. The assessee is a private limited company enjoying income from manufacture and sale of brass-ware. In the course of assessment proceedings it contended that it was an industrial company and hence should be taxed at the rate of 55 per cent, which is the rate applicable to an industrial company. The assessee-company gets manufactured various articles of brass-ware from the artisans under its supervision and control. The question is whether it is an industrial company engaged in the manufacture and processing....
All India Hot Weather, Watermen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ29CAT
1. The present O.A. had been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, before the Principal Bench, New Delhi. However, vide order dated 7.7.1995 the Original Application has been transferred to this Bench and the same was received on 7.8.1995. 44 applicants including the association namely "All India Hot Weather Waterman Association have sought for the following reliefs:-- (i) to direct the respondents to provide employment to the Temporary Hot Weather Watermen M.R.C.Ls by absorbing them in different departments of the Railways; (ii) to direct the respondents to prepare a consolidated seniority list of the MRCLs working in all the departments of Railways and to frame a scheme to regularise them according to their seniority within a reasonable time; (iii) to direct the respondents to take the applicants back in job and to pay them the arrears of salary for the period they were kept illegally out of employment with interest and to pay them part of the salary during off seasons till ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »