Allahabad Court March 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. Om Prakash Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN405(All)
ORDERThis is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the department. 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 correct in law in granting registration to the assessee-firm.3. The relevant assessment years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. As regard the assessment year 1971-72 the application for registration of the firm was rejected or, the ground that there was no genuine firm in existence, because one Smt. Vimla Devi who was shown to be one of the two partners in the firm, was held to be bogus partner. However, in the relevant assessment year with which we are concerned the Tribunal has considered the case afresh which was not available earlier and held that Smt. Vimla Devi was not bogus partner and the firm is genuine. This is a finding of fact. Hence we answer t...
Smt. Bodari Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1895b
ORDERVineet Saran, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.2. The short question in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of family pension under the Government order dated 24.2.1989. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1983 and had been getting the pension till the date of his death, i.e., 23.8.2000 but thereafter the family members are being denied the benefit of family pension merely on the ground that the scheme of family pension would be applicable only to those employees who were in service on 1.1.1989.3. By the Government order dated 24.2.1989, the benefit of family pension was extended to the non-teaching staff of educational institutions which scheme came into operation w.e.f. 1.1.1989. By a subsequent Government orde...
Netra Pal Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3912
K.N. Ojha, J. 1.Appellant Netrapal has preferred this appeal against order of conviction and sentence dated 2-6-1980, passed by Sri N. N. Sharma, Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in S.T. No. 18 of 1980, State v. Netrapal Singh, by which he was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 1PC for committing murder of Tej Pal and Ranjit Singh and causing injuries to Km. Munni with intention to commit murder and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 IPC and all the sentences are to run concurrently.2. We have heard Sri M. W. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shekhar Yadav, learned A.G.A. and have gone through the record.3. According to prosecution, Netra Pal Singh appellant committed murder of Raj Pal and Ranjit Singh and caused injuries to Km. Munni with his licensed gun on 24-9-79 at 4.30 P.M. in village Baijala, police station Atrauli, district Aligarh. F.I.R. was lodged by Babu Ram, father of...
Kalloo S/O Khyali Ram and ors. (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4113
K.N. Ojha, J.1. The appeal is preferred by Kalloo, Dalchand and Ram Pal of village Gunah Hatto, P.S., Deorania, district Bareilly against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1980 passed by Shri Ramji Lal, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1980 convicting and sentence appellant Kalloo to life imprison- merit under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34, IPC. Accused appellant-Dalchand is convicted under Section 302 and 307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 4 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Accused Rain Pal is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 4 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Sentences of all the appellants on these charges have to run concurrently.2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Kalloo died, hence the case against him stands abated.3. We have h...
Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate Vs. Sanyukta Sachiv, Uttar Pradesh Shas ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1240
D.P. Singh, J.1. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 by which the orders passed for demolition of the constructions of the petitioner have been challenged.2. The petitioner vide a registered agreement dated 15.4.1975 had purchased plot No. 146/1 having an area of 3 biswas and 10 dhurs. After the aforesaid purchase the petitioner moved an application under Section 180 of the U.P. Municipalities Act for sanction of the plan for construction. This sanction was granted by the Municipal Board vide its order dated 25.2.1982. It is submitted that the constructions started in February/March, 1982. One Kapildeo Gupta moved an application under Section 133, CrPC in respect of the construction on 20.1.1983 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its order dated 25.1.1983 directed for registering a case and issued notices to the petitioner. During the proceedings, the Naib-Tehsildar submitted its report dated...
Ashok Pandey, Advocate Vs. Satish Chandra Mishra (Presently, Advocate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1294
Khem Karan, J.1. The present writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (for short P.I.L.) has been filed by a practicing lawyer of this Court, who by now is fairly known in the legal fraternity, at least at Lucknow because of his earlier four PILs [Writ Petition Nos. 4953 (M/B) of 1999, 1838 (M/B) of 2000, 4393 (M/B) of 2000 and 4957 (M/B) of 2001], filed in this Court at Lucknow, in a short span of two or three years, for espousal of one cause or the other. We were informed during the course of arguments that all. those four PILs were dismissed by this Court and in some of them not only a great displeasure was shown, but cost was also imposed on the petitioner, for filing untenable and ill-founded PILs. But undeterred by those severe strictures and the imposition of cost, the petitioner has again brought this PIL, raising the matters, most of which arc academic in nature than real one and some of them arc political in nature.2. Before we advert to the pleas taken in the writ ...
Bahri and Company Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC583(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. This is a revision filed by the applicant under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred as 'Act') against the order of Tribunal dated September 18, 1990 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.2. Dealer was carrying on business of footwears. Footwear was liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer. Dealer purchased foot-wear against form III-A and thereafter sold in the course of inter-State sale to the party, M/s. Akai Impex Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, who had exported the same. In respect of the aforesaid transaction, assessment order was passed under U.P. Sales Tax Act. No tax was levied under section 3AAAA and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, exemption was granted treating the transaction as deemed export under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) Sales Tax, Meerut, initiated the proceeding under section 10-B of the Act on the ground that the purchase of footwears against from III-A, which w...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC873
Pradeep Kant, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. R.S. Tripathi and learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajendra Jaiswal.2. This is first appeal from order arising out of proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act awarding compensation to the respondent-claimants because of death of the husband of Smt. Raj Kumari, as a result of an accident, which had taken place between the jeep of the State and the motor cycle of the deceased. The appeal is barred by limitation, and therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has also been moved. Against the aforesaid application, the objections duly supported by an affidavit, have been filed by the respondents.3. Admittedly, the limitation in filing the appeal was upto 29.8.2001. The appeal has been filed on 19.9.2002. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the impugned order was applied for on 6.7.2001, which was received by the State on 11.7.2001. On 19.7.2001, a letter was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›