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.
Atul Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ111
M. Chaudhary, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1999 State v. Sanjay Vlshwakarma and others Police Station Kotwali Basti, District Basti accused-Sanjay Vishwakarma, Brij Kishore Singh alias Dimple and Atul Singh were placed on trial to answer the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. On conclusion of the trial learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Basti convicted ac-cused-Sanjay Vishwakarama under, Section 302, I.P.C. and accused-Atul Singh and accused-Brij Kishore Singh alias Dimple under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life thereunder and also to a fine of Rs. 5000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. All the three accused preferred separate appeals against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Since all the three appeals have arisen out of one and the same judgment they have been heard together and are being dispos...
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Parikh Gramodyog Sansthan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: [2005]140STC262(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. All the aforementioned six revisions, filed at the instance of Commissioner of Trade Tax, were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as a common question is involved in all of them. In all these revisions the question involved is regarding the taxability of automatic voltage stabilizer. According to the assessees the automatic voltage stabilizer should be taxed as electronic goods as defined in Notification No. 1223 dated March 31, 1992 and the Notification No. 3402 dated October 1, 1994. The case of the department is that voltage stabilizers are liable to be taxed as electrical goods.2. The dealers opposite-parties carried on the business of manufacture and sale of voltage stabilizers. The only difference is that in Trade References Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999 the assessing officer did not accept the case of the assessee that the voltage stabilizers are liable to be taxed as electronic goods. In rest of the revisions, i.e., Trade Tax References N...
Cit Vs. Shashi Kumar Agrawal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN823(All)
ORDERHeard Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant; and Shri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. The following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit arising from the sale of plots should be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade or the same should be taxed under the head 'Capital gains'?'3. Similar question was considered in CIT v. Shashi Kumar Agrawal : [1992]195ITR767(All) wherein it has been held that the profit from the sale of land after plotting it out to secure better price cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade.4. In view of the above decision, we answer the question referred to above in negative, i.e., it cannot be taxed as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade.5. The Reference is accordingly disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs....
Cit Vs. K.M. Sinha and Bros.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN90(All)
ORDERHeard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant; and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue.2. The following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the Income Tax Officer to frame separate assessments for the periods 24-1-1977 to 9-12-1977 and 10-12-1977 to 11-2-1978 ?'3. In CIT v. Empire Estate : [1996]218ITR355(SC) , it has been held that if one of the partners dies and there is no clause in the partnership deed that if any of the partners dies the partnership shall dissolved, two separate assessments are to be made.4. In view of the above decision, the order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that two separate assessments be made is justified and legally correct and we answer the question referred to above in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Usha Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: II(2005)ACC328
S.P. Srivastava, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer appellant.The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 6,72,048/- as just compensation to which the dependents of the deceased Udai Veer Singh were found entitled to on account of his untimely death who met with an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a truck which had been insured by the present appellant covering the risk.2. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a careful consideration of the evidence and materials brought on record, had come to the conclusion that the deceased Udai Veer Singh was aged about 38 years. The income of the deceased was found to be Rs. 7,000/- per month. The family of the deceased was quite large. Besides his wife he had left behind 5 children. After excluding 1/3rd of the income of the deceased which he might have been spending upon himself, the Tri...
Saurabh JaIn and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)2UPLBEC1563
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.11.2001, Annexure-7 to the writ petition passed by the State Government and the orders dated 11.12.2001 and 15.4.2002 Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition passed by the Moradabad Development Authority. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner possession of the land measuring 8116.65 sq. m. of Plot No. 454 situate in village Harthala Mustahkam, Tahsil and District Moradabad and for reimbursement on account of illegal dispossession.2. In proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 this land was declared surplus vacant land by the Competent Authority, Moradabad by order dated 29.8.77. Against that order a revision was filed and the State Government by order dated 9.7.98 in exercise powerUnder Section 34 of the Act held that the land in dispute was agricultural land and outside the purview ...
Cit Vs. Mahendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN888(All)
ORDERHeard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The reference has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 31-7-1981 passed in ITA No. 2044 (Del) of 1980. The following questions of law were referred :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the share income from M/s. Goverdhan Dass Mahendra Kumar amounting to Rs. 39,510 cannot be included in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest income of Rs. 4,596 from M/s. Goverdhan Dass Mahendra Kumar cannot be included in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was already correct in holding that the share income of Rs. 2,256 from M/s. Sisona Gur and Khandsar...
Badan Singh Vs. Election Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC2898
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the declaration of the respondent No. 6 as elected Pradhan. 2. It is alleged in writ petition that in the year 2000 election of the Gram Panchayat was held and five persons filed nominations as stated in para 3 of the petition. Polling was held on 30.6.2000 and the counting of votes started on 26.6.2000 and the result was declared on the same day. Photostat copy of the result is Annexure-1. A perusal of this result shows that the petitioner Badan Singh was shown to have received 597 whereas the respondent No. 6 was shown to have been received 585. The Election Officer issued a certificate to the petitioner on 26.6.2000 stating he is elected as Pradhan. It is alleged in para 7 that on the first counting Amar Singh filed application before the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer had inspected the votes and found no illegality in the counting, which was complete at 10.00 a.m. and the petit...
Smt. Pyari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004All70
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. We have heard this writ petition along with Special Appeal No. (519) of 2002.2. The petitioner in this writ petition and the appellant in Special Appeal No. (519) of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as special appeal) are similarly situated and have filed writ petition and special appeal for similar relief. The special appeal has arisen out of Writ Petition No. 29926 of 2002 (Bhairao Ram v. Additional District Judge, Anpara situated at Obra, Sonbhadra and Ors.). In Writ Petition No. 29926 of 2002 almost similar relief has been claimed by the petitioner/appellant, Bhairao Ram, which are being claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition filed by Bhairao Ram being Writ Petition No. 29926 of 2002 has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 4-10-2002 against which special appeal has been filed. Since both the cases arises out of the same facts and circumstances, Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2003 is being treated as leading case and reference of fac...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kapoor Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR496(All)
1. This reference under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been made by the Tribunal for our decision on the following question :'Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in its finding that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, has not (sic) been made effective from April 1, 1979, was to apply even in respect of pending assessments for orders prior to the assessment year 1979-80 ?' 2. This issue has been considered by the hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , wherein it has been held that rule 1BB of the Rules 1957, partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognized and accepted methods. The rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on April 1, 1979, when the rule came into force.3. In view of the above, the reference is answered in the affirmati...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »