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.
Banda Tent House Association Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC355(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondent-trade tax authorities not to take any action against the petitioner and its members under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as they are not dealers covered by the Act.2. Since the question involved in this case is a purely legal one we did not deem it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit and hence after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel we reserved judgment.3. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner is an association of members involved in the activity of giving articles such as chairs, tents, pillows, bed-sheet, crockery, etc., to other persons and other members of the association for the use of specific purposes, but the effective control always remains with the tent house owner or owner of the other articles, and the person using the same is not free to use it for any purpose than the one for which it ...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Gorakhpur Grah Udyog Kendra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: [2005]142STC602(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. In these revisions, the question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified to hold that masala obtained from sabut masala are one and same commodity and no manufacturing process is involved and therefore, the dealer/opposite party was not liable to tax?2. The issue involved is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in the case of Umesh Masala Udyog v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1992 UPTC 554, and in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Alka Griha Udyog, Bareilly reported in (1999) 38 STI 208. Respectively, following the above judgments of this Court, the view taken by the Tribunal is upheld.3. Both the revisions lacks merit and are accordingly dismissed....
Cit Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN83(All)
This is reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act 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 legally correct in its opinion that looking to the totality of the circumstances it could not be said that the assessee acted in conscious disregard of the statutory obligations its conduct was in any way dishonest or contumacious?'2. In the Tribunals appellate order a finding of fact has been recorded that it cannot be said that the assessee acted in conscious disregard of the statutory obligations or that its conduct was in any way dishonest or contumacious.3. This is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere with it in this reference. The question referred to us is therefore decided in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department....
Cit Vs. Jai Kishan Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR482(All)
M. Katju, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is a wealth-tax reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, 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 law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of cinema building owned by this firm ?'3. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment years are 1974-75 to 1977-78. The assessee has 50 per cent share in the firm, Jain Kishan Anand Swarup, Bulandshahr. The assets of the firm consist of a cinema building, and the question in this case is whether the assessee's 50 per cent share in the value of the cinema building is exempt from wealth-tax. The Wealth Tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed his claim. The Tribunal dismissed the second appeal filed by the department.4. The sh...
Harihar Nath Agarwal (P) Family Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of In ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(All)589; [2003]264ITR612(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 3,23,226 with interest from 1st April, 1986, till the date of actual refund in relation to the asst. yr. 1984-85.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was assessed in the status of AOP and tax was charged at the maximum marginal rate under the IT Act. True copy of the assessment order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed by the CIT(A) which set aside the order of the ITO and directed him to pass a fresh order. True copy of the order of the CIT(A), is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Against this order the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal. True copy of the order of the Tribunal is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.3. It is alleged in para. 4 of the writ petition that in pursuance of the order of the CIT(A) dt. 21st March, 1988 the ITO was required to pas...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sahara India Savings and Investment Cor ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(All)136; [2003]264ITR646(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act challenging the order dt. 15th Oct., 1999, of the Tribunal, Allahabad. This appeal and connected appeals ITA Nos. 72 of 2003, 36 of 2000, 38 of 2000, 40 of 2000, 154 of 2000 and 155 of 2000 are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Heard Shri Bharatji Agarwal, learned senior standing counsel for the Department, and Shri Percy Pardiwalla and Shri S.D. Singh for the respondents.3. We have carefully perused the record. The respondent-company is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. In the order of the CIT(A) in ITA No. 154 of 2000, it is mentioned that as per the memorandum of association the objects for which the company was established are :'1. To establish, promote, conduct, manage, maintain, improve, regulate, run, work and control the different types of schemes for encouraging the habit of savings and wise economy amongst the public on scientific, practical lines and also help men, women and children...
Sheobir Singh Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3407
ORDERVineet Saran, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State Police Service of Uttar Pradesh.2. The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and after having been successful in the written examination, vide letter dated 7.5.1981, he was required to appear before the Interview Board on 19.5.1981. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and it is his case that he had been declared successful for selection and appointment as Sub-Inspector. On 19.8.1981, a report was called for by the Superintendent of Police, Police Headquarters from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr with regard to the verification of the character of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, submitted his report in September, 1981, stating that there was a Case Crime No. 52 under Section 302/307, ...
Lt. Col. V.K. Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)1UPLBEC182
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned punishment of reprimand passed on 17th March. 1992 by the GOC. UP Area for rte offence of 'An Omission Prejudicial To Good Order and Military Discipline' allegedly committed by the petitioner when he was Garrison Engineer, at Air Force Station. Agra between November, 1986 and October. 1989. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.11.93, Anncxure-4 to the petition rejecting the statutory complaint against the reprimand. He has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order rejecting his statutory complaint against non-promotion vide order dated 1.6.94. Annexure-6. He has prayed for an order directing respondents to promote him to the post of Lt. Col (Selection Grade). Colonel and Brigadier with retrospective effect from the date from which his Juniors were promoted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a 1973 Batch Corps of Engineers Officers commissioned in t...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ram Murti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3409; (2004)ILLJ669All
Rakesh Tiwari, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 29.7.1991, passed by respondent No. 3, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the order dated 24.2.2000, passed by respondent No. 2 Annexure-7 to the writ petition arising out of an order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 29.7.1991.3. The brief facts of the case are that Ram Murti, respondent No. 1 filed P.W. Case Nos. 3 of 1985 and 12 of 1985 before the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly under the Payment of Wages Act, for payment of his wages. The aforesaid cases were decided by the prescribed authority. Payment of Wages Act/Assistant Labour Commissioner. Bareilly, vide Judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 directing the 'General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for making payment of Rs. 74,700 to the respondent No. 1.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orde...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Brij Kishore Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)AWC3448; (2004)1UPLBEC166
ORDERM. Katju and U. Pandey, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 10.5.2001. We have carefully perused the said judgment. It appears that earlier one of us (M. Katju, J.) allowed Writ Petition No. 40495/1996, Ravindra Nath and Ors. v. State of U. P. on 28.5.1997.3. The facts in the said case were that 475 posts of Sub-Inspector of Civil Police for males and 50 for females were advertised in October, 1991. The petitioners appeared in the examination and alleged that they qualified but since no waiting list was prepared, they were not considered for appointment, as they were not in the main select list.4. The learned single Judge in that petition (Writ Petition No. 40495 of 1996) observed :'In the present case no proper reason has been given by the respondents as to why a waiting list has not been prepared. Hence, in my opinion the action of the respondents, is arbitrary. In my ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »