Allahabad Court September 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. Umesh Kumar Modi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN256(All)
ORDERThis is an Income Tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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 directing that. the value of the perquisite in respect of residential accommodation provided to the assessee in Modi Bhavan, should be limited to tile value fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 for the assessment year 1977-78 ?2. Identical question has been decided by the Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee, in CIT v. Smt. Dayawati Modi : [2003]259ITR375(Delhi) , we are in respectful agreement with the Delhi High Court. Hence, this reference is also decided in the affirmative, i.e., ill favour of the assessee and against the department....
Bhuwal Prasad Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN347(All)
ORDERThis 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, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000 levied under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. The finding of fact is that the assessee has been unable to discharge burden under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus is a finding of fact. Hence, we cannot interfere with the same. The reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, ie., in favour of the department and against the assessee....
Sri Krishna Murari Lal Varma Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN461(All)
This is a Reference under section 226(1) of the Income Tax Act, in which two questions have been referred to us for our opinion, relating to penalty imposed:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly invoked the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) which was deleted with effect from 1-4-1976 ?2. Whether there was any material for the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to hold that the assessee had not discharged the burden within the meaning of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) as it stood prior to 1-4-1976 and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ?'2. The Tribunal has found that the assessee has not discharged his burden under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere with the same. Hence, we decide the Reference in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee....
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh Chandra Dwivedi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC141
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.7.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in MACT Case No. 55 of 2002. The plaintiff respondent filed claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries suffered by him on account of the accident, which took place on 8th October, 2000. It was stated that the claimant received injuries while he was going towards his house on the aforesaid date from one Truck No. PIL - 5682 driven by Sri Harveer Singh. The claimant received injuries as the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. The truck hit the vehicle of the claimant, with the result the claimant received multiple injuries, he has become permanent disable person. At the time of accident the age of the claimant was 46 years and was drawing salary of Rs. 4,130/-.2. The claim petition was contested by the present appellant on number of pleas including that the truck driver was not holding a valid licence and, as such, Insurance...
Cwt Vs. Ajit Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN550(All)
ORDERThis is for a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion.'1. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of his share in the value of the immovable properties which belonged to the firm of which the assessee was a partner?2. Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law it) holding that reversionary value of the land cannot be included while valuing the immovable property by capitalizing net annual value?'2. The first question is covered against the department by the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. TS. Sundaram (1999) 237 ITR 611 while the second question is also covered by the decision of this court against the department in CWT v. Ram Saran Kajriwal (1987) 168 ITR 485.3. Following the aforesaid decisions the questions referred are answered in ...
Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Through the Secretary, Nagar Vikas, Go ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3209; (2004)1UPLBEC721
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. These petitions in hand have been filed by the petitioners who have been stagnating in various Nagar Nigams/Nagar Palika Parishads as Daily wage Class IV employees ever since their induction in the service prior to June, 1991. Since all the petitions are knit together by common cause and have been filed for the common reliefs, they have been heard together for decision as a composite case.2. Writ Petition No. 2093 of 2002, Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P., is taken up as a leading case to get hang of the substance of the controversy involved in the petitions. The petitioner in the aforestated writ petition, namely, Praveen Kumar had entered the service of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Modi Nagar on 8.1.1991 as Electrician and ever since then he has been performing his duties assigned to him in the capacity of daily wage employee in unbroken continuity.3. I have heard Sarvsri R.C. Shukla, Y.K. Sinha, Neeraj Tripathi and other learned counsel appearing for respective pet...
Santosh Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3103
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition was initially filed for a mandamus restraining respondent No. 1 from demolishing the construction over the Plot Nos. 2339 and 2340 at Pala Road, Pargana and Tahsil Koli, district Aligarh and from dispossessing the petitioners. The petitioners also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, Aligarh Development Authority (A.D.A.) to issue a letter of allotment to the petitioner in respect the said land as per the approval of the Vice-Chairman dated 20.9.1995. By a subsequent amendment the petitioners have also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of respondent No. 4 dated 23.10.2001 as published in the Newspaper (Dainik Jagran) dated 1.11.2001 vide (Annexure-18 to the petition).2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioners have alleged that they purchased the aforesaid plots by means of a registered sale-deed dated 19.9.1991 from one Onkar Prasad Garg. A true copy of the sale-deed is Annexure-1 to the pe...
Dali Alias Chhotey Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3386
Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the land acquisition 'proceedings including the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act' dated 14th August, 1987, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 4.8.1987, on various grounds.2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Pranav Ojha, has fairly submitted that identical petitions challenging the same notification and declaration have already been decided by this Court and the validity of the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act have been upheld, therefore, it is not open for him to make any submission on those counts. His limited prayer is that as the land had been acquired for the purposes of establishing residential/ commercial area, it will not serve any purpose demolishing the duly constructed residential house of the petitioner and allot the land to someone else for the same purposes. However, petiti...
Rahul Kumar Sharma Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Trade Tax and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3108
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The Deputy Commissioner (E) Trade Tax, Azamgarh held a test for the post of Junior Clerks in Trade Tax Department, in which the petitioner was selected. He was appointed vide appointment letter dated 14.7.1997 and was directed to join in the Mandal Karyalaya, Trade Tax Department, Jaunpur. He was also sent to the Institute of Secretariat Training of Management, Faizabad, where he had undergone training w.e.f. 14.12.1998 to 23.12.1998. The appointment of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20- 1.150-EB-25-1.500 was wholly temporary in nature and was liable to be terminated at any time by giving one months notice. The appointment letter dated 14.7.1997 containing the terms and conditions of the appointment is reproduced below :^^vkns'kr`rh; Js.kh Vad.k fyfid in gsrqvk;ksftr ijh{kk esa lQy vH;FkhZ Jh jkgqy dqekj 'kekZ iq= Jh deyk izlkn eksgYyk@xzke U;w flVh LVs'ku] tkSuiqj ds dfu'B fyfid ds in ij vLFkkbZ :i...
Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3451
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 19.8.2003 passed by the trial/execution court in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991, Ram Narain Verma v. Ram Chandra Verma (Annexure-C to the writ petition).2. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the said order dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) was passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991.3. In further appears that against the said order dated 19.8.2003, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Along with the said revision, an application praying for staying further proceedings in Execution Case No. 5 of 1991 was also filed.4. By the order dated 22.8.2003, the learned Incharge District Judge, Jhansi directed that notice be issued to the respondents in the revision for hearing on the question of admi...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »