Allahabad Court February 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.
Khem Chand No. 14501374 Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1072
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of, the Constitution of India filed by Khem Chand against the judgment and order of his conviction under Section 302, IPC passed by the General Court Martial and Chief of the Army Staff, Annexure-6 and Annexure-7 to the writ petition. By an order dated 21.1.1975, Annexure 6 to the writ petition, the petitioner was to suffer imprisonment for life. He was to be dismissed from service also consequently. The sentence was subject to the confirmation by the General Officer Commanding. The findings and sentence of the General Court Martial were confined by the General Officer Commanding vide order dated 25.2.1975 and the appeal of the petitioner to the Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, was also dismissed. 3. At the time of admission, this petition was connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8723 of 1980, Satya Deo Giri v. Union of India and others, vide or...
Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN106(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act.The following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 37(2B) were applicable to the expenses of Rs.7,959 incurred by the assessee ?'2. The Income Tax Officer while making the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 disallowed the entertainment expenses being not admissible under section 37(2B) of the Income Tax Act. This order was affirmed upto the stage of Tribunal. The Tribunal in paragraph 12 of its order has observed that the disallowance of Rs. 7,959 by the Income Tax Officer is legally correct in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Brij Raman Dass & Sons v. CIT : [1976]104ITR541(All) . The aforesaid judgment has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co....
Cit Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN105(All)
ORDERM. Katju, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. In paragraph 5 of the statement of the case the question referred to this court for its opinion is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of partial partition was valid and was rightly accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'The facts of this case are covered by the Supreme Court decision in Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. CIT : [1983]141ITR558(SC) . Following the said decision, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Cit Vs. Shankar Novelties Glass Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN67(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring definition of Actual cost as given in section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in holding that the subsidy of Rs. 41,277 was not to be deducted from the value of the Generator in the matter of grant of depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. During the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee claimed full depreciation on generator. The cost of the generator was Rs. 2,13,277. However, the assessment order was reopened as the assessee had received Rs. 41,277 as subsidy on generator from U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur. In the re-assessment proceedings the Income Tax Officer relied on the definition of Actual Cost' as mentioned in section 43 of the Act and reduced the cost of generator by the cost of subsidy received by the assessee on gener...
Cit Vs. Sant Motor Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN107(All)
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.The following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he directed the Income Tax Officer to frame another assessment on the reconstituted firm for the period from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1976 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1976-77. Originally the assessee-firm consisted of six partners including three minors Km. Manprit, Dilprit Kaur and Inderpit Kaur. A fresh partnership deed was drawn with effect from 30-9-1975. Harjeet Singh, Bhajan Singh and Smt. Amrit Kaur, who were also the partners in the old firm continued to be partners in the firm even after 30-9-1975. The aforesaid three minors retired from the partnership. Section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act provides that on retirement of partners, the old firm continues as it is a case of ...
Raj Kumar Chaddha Vs. Xviith Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC861
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 16.11.2002 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed on the application Nos. 114 Ga-2 and 117 Ga-2, the order dated 29.7.2002 (Annexure-1A to the writ petition) passed on the application No. 91Ga, the order dated 19.10.2002 (Annexure-1B to the writ petition) passed on the review application, and the order dated 22.5.2002 (Annexure-SA-3 to the third supplementary-affidavit sworn on 15th December, 2002).2. The petitioner has inter alia, filed the following supplementary-affidavits in this writ petition :(1) First Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 7th December, 2002. (2) Second Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 12th December, 2002. (3) Third Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 15th December, 2002. (4) Fourth Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 25th January, 2003. 3. The dispute relates to a shop bearing No. 269B, Abu-Lane, Meerut Cantt. The said shop has hereinafter been referr...
U.P. Udyog Vyapar Pratinidhi Mandal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003All230; 2003(2)AWC1011; (2003)1UPLBEC718
Prakash Krishna, J.1. These are four writ petitions. The controversy involved in all the above mentioned writ petitions is common and hence, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.2. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of the bye-laws, filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, framed by the Zila Panchayat, Agra. The said bye-laws were published in the official Gazette on 11th May, 2002. These bye-laws were framed for the purpose of regulation of transportation by vehicles from Agra District to outside and from outside districts to Agra of Gitti, Patthar, Boulder, Coal, Marble, Yamuna Sand and Balu, etc. Bye-law No. 19 provides the charges to be paid on every trip of the vehicle, namely, trolly, mini truck and truck. It further provides that the amount thus realised shall be utilised for providing drinking water facility to the vehicle owners and drivers and medical facilities shall also be provided at the point of loading or at any other sp...
Hari Kishan Vs. PravIn Kumar Garg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1177
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal on behalf of the plaintiff-revisionist and Sri Ram Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Niraj Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for contesting defendant-respondent No. 2.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 pointed out to trial court's order dated 12.2.2002 and appellate order dated 7.9.2002 to show that the plaintiff is not a bona fide litigant and he has been guilty of not pursuing litigation promptly and thereby abusing the process of the Court and harassing the defendant.3. It may be noted that the present revision arises out of Original Suit No. 400 of 1991 which has been filed for partition. Learned counsel for the revisionist admits that the son of the plaintiff-revisionist is an Advocate. This Court takes Judicial notice of the fact that whenever an Advocate is involved in the litigation, he takes to his head that the Court and judicial process is in his pocket. This cannot be tolerated. I am convinced that the plaintiff i...
Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1997; (2003)1UPLBEC894
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul for petitioner ; Sri Nurul Huda and Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned standing counsel for respondents.2. Petitioner Smt. Kalawati Devi is an elected Pradhan of village Panchayat Madanpatti, Vikas Khand Atrauliya, district Azamgarh. She has challenged a notice of no-confidence motion dated 12.1.2003, signed by 724 members of Gram Sabha which is more than half of the villagers on the electoral list and has been delivered in person by three members of the Gram Sabha, namely, Ram Tahal, Tihul and Smt. Reshma. By impugned order dated 25.1.2003, the District Panchayat Raj Officer/Prescribed Authority, Azamgarh, recorded satisfaction to the genuineness of signatures and convened the meeting of Gram Sabha for considering of no-confidence motion on 9.2.2003 at 10.00 a.m.3. Learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the notice and the order of prescribed authority convening meeting on the ground that the notice does not comply with the requ...
Girraj Stone Crusher Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC523(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition and connected/similar writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned circular dated June 26, 1999 issued by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., annexure-4 to the writ petition by which the cash security for issuing form XXXI under U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 for import of stone ballast has been increased from Rs. 180 to Rs. 530 per form.4. The petitioner supplies stone ballast to the Railways in accordance with the Railways specification. Copy of the relevant extract of the contract dated October 25, 1999 is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Under the contract, the rate of supply of ballast, transportation charges, loading and unloading charge, stacking charges, etc., are separately stipulated. Under the U.P. Trade Tax Act stone ballast is liable to pay trad...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »