Allahabad Court May 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.
Ganesh Shankar Pandey and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All26; 2003(3)ARBLR11(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Sudhir Narain, J.) dated 17.08.1999 copy of which is Annexure 17 to the writ petition. The petitioner his also prayed for a mandamus to the appropriate authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 and pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss suffered due to cancellation of his contract.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned judgment. The facts of the case are mentioned in detail in the impugned judgment and hence need not be repeated. The contract in question was for conversion of 35 kms. Railway track from meter gauge to broad gauge. The petitioner had submitted a tender but he did not furnish the bank guarantee as was required. He was asked by the letter of Chief Engineer dated 2...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kailash Kumar Dixit (Huf)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)17
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. Following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that a valid partial partition had been effected of the assessee-HUF on 30th June, 1976 ?'2. Heard Sri Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee, and Sri Mahajan, learned counsel for Revenue.3. The learned counsel at Bar are in agreement that the matter stands fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appurva Shanti Lal Shah v. CIT : [1983]141ITR558(SC) , wherein it has been held that a partial partition of any joint family property by the father, between himself and his sons, does not become invalid on the ground that there has been no equal distribution amongst the co-sharers and the father was having a right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons.4. In view of the above, the reference is decided in favour of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.P. Bhatia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR626(All)
1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in weight to the supplementary deed dated February 1, 1977 ?2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the application for registration in Form No. 11 as contemporaneous evidence ?'None appears on behalf of the assessee. Heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. In R. C. Mitter and Sons v. CIT and D.C. Auddy and Bros. v. CIT : [1959]36ITR194(SC) , the apex court has held that if the assessee-firm came into existence on April 1, 1948, under an oral agreement, and an intimation was given to the bank on April 15, 1949, as there was no evidence of creation of partnership firm in the previous year, the assessee was not eligible for registration for the assessment year 1949-50.Thus it was held that...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)3UPLBEC2372
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting Respondents.2. In view of the office report dated 25.4.2003, notice of service upon Respondent No.3 has been held sufficient.3. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 10th September, 1984, passed by Respondent No. 2, copy whereof has been annexed asAnnexures-'6' to the writ petition, on the application purported to have been moved by Respondent No. 3 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has been registered by the Labour Court as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1982. A perusal of the aforesaid application will demonstrate that the workman has claimed that since he has worked over time for a period of 141 hours, therefore, the wages at the rate of double amount should be paid to him the total of w...
Juhi Metal Works Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN887(All)
ORDERInspite of service to the assessee to engage another counsel, no step has been taken nor any body entered in reference on behalf of the assessee.2. We heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 referring the following two questions :'Reference by the Commissioner R.A. No. 431 (All) of 1981, Assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) was bad in law ?'Reference by the assessee, R.A. No. 298 (Ahd) of 1981, assessment year 1977-78'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was valid ?' '3. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT : [1979]119ITR996(SC) , the...
Cit Vs. Kailash Kumar Dixit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN597(All)
ORDERThis is a Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following question has been referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in taking the view that a valid partial partition had been effected of the assessee-HUF on 30-6-1976 ?'2. Heard Sri Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Mahajan, learned counsel for revenue.3. The learned counsel at bar are in agreement that the matter stands fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. CIT : [1983]141ITR558(SC) , wherein it has been held that a partial partition of any joint family property by the father, between himself and his sons, does not become invalid on the ground that there has been no equal distribution amongst the co-sharers and the father was having a right to give consent for partition on behalf of his minor sons.4. In view of the above, the reference is deci...
Cit Vs. J.P. Bhatia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN391(All)
ORDERThis is reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following questions have been referred for our opinion:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in weight to the supplementary deed dated 1-2-1977?2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the application for registration in Form No. 11 as contemporaneous evidence?'2. None appears on behalf of the assessee, Heard Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned standing counsel for the revenue. In R. C. Mitter & Sons v. CIT : [1959]36ITR194(SC) , the Apex Court has held that if the assessee-firm came into existence on 1-4-1948, under an oral agreement, and an intimation was given to the bank on 15-4-1949, as there was no evidence of creation of partnership firm in the previous, the assessee was not eligible for registration for assessment year 1949-50.3. Thus it was held that unless the partnership firm had carried business in accordance with term...
Shiv NaraIn Karmandra NaraIn Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN886(All)
ORDERThis is a reference under section 256(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Three questions have been referred but in this reference we are concerned only one question which read as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in holding that the loss of Rs. 31,000 constituted speculation loss'.2. Heard Sri V.K. Upadhaya for the assessee and Sri A.N. Majahan, for the revenue.3. This case is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jute Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1980]121ITR56(SC) , wherein it has been held that since there was no actual delivery or transfer of goods and the contracts were settled between the parties by the transfer of Pucca delivery orders, transaction were speculative transaction within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, the loss therefrom could not be set off, against other income as an ordinary business loss and had to be treated as speculative. The s...
Cit Vs. Juhi Metal Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN306(All)
In spite of service to the assessee to engage another counsel, no step has been taken nor has anybody entered in reference on behalf of the assessee.2. We heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the revenue.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, referring the following two questions :3. Reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax R.A. No. 431 (All) of 1981, assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) was bad in law ?'4. Reference by the assessee, R.A. No. 298 (All) of 198 1, assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid ?'5. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT ...
Ram Briksh Prasad Vs. Member-secretary Regional Administrative Committ ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1527
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.3.2002, (Annexure-II) by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated and order dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure-V) by which his appeal against the order dated 13.3.2002 has been dismissed.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 25th June, 2001 initiating an enquiry on the charges of absconding, embezzelement and irregularities in purchase of the wheat. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 30334 of 2001, before this Court, but no interim relief could be granted. As petitioner remained absent from duty for more than 3 months, in view of the provisions of Rule 59-B(3) of U.P. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1975), he was liable to be dismissed from service without holding disciplinary proceedings. A notice was served upon...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »