Allahabad Court October 2004 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.
Radha Devi (Smt.) Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC11
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.5.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rampur in Rent Appeal No. 77 of 1984 Smt. Mithilesh Kumari and five Ors. v. Dharam Pal and Anr. whereby the preliminary objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeal has been rejected and date was fixed for hearing of the appeal on merits.2. I have heard Sri P.K. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Smt. Ramo Devi Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, however, even in the revised list no one is present to press the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Since the same is on record it is being examined.4. The facts of the case are that application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (in sort the Act), was filed by Smt. Yashoda Dev...
Ashish Tandon Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All99; 2005(2)AWC1677
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to impose and accept the extension charge according to Clause P of the lease deed dated 30-12-1998, and to extend the time for completion of the constructions of the building over Plot No. 1, Block-F, Sector Alfa, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has also prayed for a direction to calculate the total premium of the plot at the rate which was provided at the time of execution of lease deed.3. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (In short the Authority) is a body corporate constituted under Section 3 read with Section 2(d) of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act 1976. The petitioner was allotted Plot No. 1 situate in Block-F in Sector Alfa, Greater Noida by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, measuring 200 square meters for construction of residential building. A lease ...
Gram Panchayat and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1792; 2005(1)ESC575; (2005)2UPLBEC1225
1. The Gram Panchayats Basta Raipur; Khadar, Tehsil Chandpur; Rasoolpur; Rehar; Jai Singh Jot; Kotwali; Basantpur; Gohawar, and Gohawar Hallu, District Bijnor have filed these writ petitions, for quashing a letter dated 17.1.2004, issued by Chief Development Officer, Bijnor to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chandpur directing him, that, except, for Village Kasampur Garhi and Seervasu Chand, the Tehbazari, shall be collected by the contractors of Zila Panchayat, Bijnor in accordance with the bye-laws, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their right to collect the Tehbazari from the markets situate in their territorial limits.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The dispute in these writ petitions is between the petitioner Gram Panchayats and the Zila Panchayat, Bijnor for collection of Tehbazari. In Writ Petition No. 15251/2002, filed by Gram Panchayat Kasampur Garhi and Gram Panchayat Seervasu Chand, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor, thi...
Ram Kumar Gupta Vs. A.D.J. (E.C. Act) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2375
A.N. Varma, J.1. Through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and orders dated 29.9.2004 as well as 24.5.2001 passed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively. It has further been prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding opposite parties not to evict the petitioner from over the house in question.2. The petitioner who was working as an Office Superintendent with the opposite parties attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1996. By virtue of his employment he was allotted an accommodation by the opposite parties. Upon his retirement the petitioner was required and was asked to vacate the premises in question, which he, however, did not vacate and instituted a suit being Regular Suit No. 138 of 2001 against the opposite parties praying for a decree that he be not evicted otherwise than in due course...
Chief Commissioner (Admn.) Vs. Sharma Sugar Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN545(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this court:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was correct in believing the statement of the Munim in the cross examination by the assessee's counsel on 26-3-1980 when the said Munim had admitted before the Income Tax Officer on 17-9-1979 that he had not written the Cane Purchase Register2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in canceling the penalty of Rs. 22,736 levied under section 271(1)(c)?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The respondent assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, which had done the business of Khandsari in the assessment year 1976-77, it filed return of income showing income o...
Smt. Kusum Jaiswal Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN701(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Income Tax Officer imposing penalty was illegal having been passed with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in terms of the proviso to section 271(1)(c)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally correct in confirming the penalty on the ground of concealment of Rs. 15,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the Income Tax Officer and the CIT (A) had applied the provisions of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the above Act?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :-The applicant is a lady and has been assessed to income tax in the s...
Som Engineering Corporation Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN18(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this court :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally right in holding that the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) were attracted to the case ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The reference relates to assessment year 1971-72. For the assessment year 1971-72, the applicant filed its return of income on 30-12-1971, showing the total income of Rs. 71,870. However, the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 1,68,350. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealing the particulars of income and a notice was issued on 21-3-1977. No reply was received. On 4-10-1978, another show-cause notice was issued to the applicant requiring it to show cause as to why the penalty under se...
Cit Vs. Shri Radha Krisha Temple Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN352(All)
R.K. Agrawal, JIn the IT Ref. No. 7 of 1987 which arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, for opinion to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, Allahabad, was justified in holding that an investment of the value thereof received by a trust by way of donation cannot be treated as an investment within the meaning of section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, in the law and on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income Tax Officer was wrong in invoking the provisions of section 13(1) (certiorari quashing the order dated) and section 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case 3. Whether, in law and on facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the trust ?'2. Wher...
P.N. Shukla Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN624(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this court:'Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the relief under proviso (c) to section 23(1) of Income Tax Act, 196l.'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80 of which the relevant previous year ends on 31-3-1979. The applicant is an individual. He derives income from salary and property. He owns a property situated at B40, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow. The ground floor of the property was let out on 1-8-1978 to the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500 out of which Rs. 1,250 was payable towards the installation of booster pump and other fixtures. The applicant claimed deduction under clause (c) of the second ...
Ram AdhIn Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC28; (2005)2UPLBEC1223
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri A. K. Singh advocate, holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. G.S.D. Mishra advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Shri Daya Shankar Singh the respondent No. 3 filed Original Suit No. 26 of 1973 for the relief of recovery of money advanced by the petitioner on the basis of a pronote of Rs. 150/- against the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 26th November, 1974. The aforesaid decree was put to auction on 7.4.1978. Petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that petitioner was a farmer and the total holding of the petitioner was less than 1 hectare and annual income the petitioner was less than Rs. 2,400/- and, therefore, the petitioner being a marginal farmer is entitled to the benefits of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. Section 22C of the said Act, as such, bars the execution of a decree ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »