Allahabad Court November 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Pramod Kumar Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN360(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for opinion of this Court:'Whether the ITAT is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the W.T. Act in respect of his share in the value of immovable property which belonged to the firm of which the assessee is a partner?'2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present case, are as follows. The reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has made a reference in respect of five persons similarly situated. All the five persons are partners in different firms, which own a Cinema Hall. They claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of their share in the Cinema Hall. The exemption was disallowed by the Wealth-tax Officer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the exemption under t...
Birla Aircon Vs. Ce and Cu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN360(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.By means of the present writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, M/s. Birla Aircon, seeks the following reliefs'(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 27-7-2004, and 29-3-2004. passed by the Commissioner, Excise and Customs, Range I, Meerut, respondent No. 1 and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1, Meerut, respondent No. 2, respectively (annexures Nos. 8 and 11 to the writ petition).(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which, this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.(iii) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.'The petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of ' air-conditioners, airconditioner kits, water coolers, water cooler kits and geysers in its factory situated at 149, Delhi Road, Meerut, A search operation was undertaken by the Central excise authority on 21-8-2000, when certain documents were...
Reeta Pandey (Smt.) Vs. Industrial Tribunal (iii) and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC691; [2005(104)FLR584]; (2005)1UPLBEC409
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mahima Maurya, learned Counsel for the petition and Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned award dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1-Industrial Tribunal (III) U.P. Kanpur holding that the termination of the service of the petitioner-workman as absolutely valid and legal, she was not entitled to any relief or compensation.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No. 2-U.P. Small Industries Corporation Limited, Industrial Estate, Kanpur since 14.1.1988 and had been placed in the regular pay scale on 5.7.1988. She worked with the respondent No. 2 continuously during the period 1988 to 1995 and was retrenched from service by the respondent No. 2 vide...
Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police/Fire Serv ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC611
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 5.3.1991. While he was working as Fire Man in the Fire Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, he is alleged to have been implicated in a criminal, case under Sections 364/323 -IPC in pursuance of the FIR lodged by one Smt. Asha Srivastava wife of Sri Ashutosh Kumar Verma in respect of an incident on 9.2.1999. The petitioner was arrested by the Police and released on bail on 20.2.99. Thereafter he was suspended vide Order dated 12.2.99 passed by respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. The petitioner moved an application before respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the Order of suspension since criminal case No. 47 of. 1999 was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth, Varanasi against him which may take long time for disposal. 3. The petitioner was thereafter transferred vide. Order dated 14.6.2002 passed ' by respondent...
Kailash Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ389CAT
1. By this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant impugned order dated 21.1.99 imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and the appellate order dated 18/19.8.99 by which his appeal was rejected and the penalty was confirmed (Annexure 1A & 1). He has further prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents for his reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.2. Shorn of superfluities, the relevant facts to determine the controversy is that the applicant, at the relevant time, was working as Extra Department Branch Post Master (E.D.B.P.M.) at Branch Post Office, Bankata Amethia, Deoria, Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under the Rule 17 of the Extra Departmental Agent (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the 1964 Rules). He was served with Memorandum of charges by letter dated 17.07.98 (Annexure 9), Articles of charges are as under- ;g vkjksfir gS fd Jh dS...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Shyam Lal Bhatia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)459; [2005]277ITR399(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the AAC was competent to decide the appeal on merits, and consequently in giving a finding that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the WT return, ignoring the vital fact that the CWT had passed an order under the provisions of Section 18B of the WT Act, declining to waive the penalty, and the WTO's earlier order levying penalty got merged with the CWT's order and became final in view of specific provisions of Section 18B(5) of the WT Act ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1976-77. The respondent assessee is an individual He filed his WT returns for the assessment years in ques...
Kailash NaraIn Agnihotri Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC31; (2005)1UPLBEC283
B.S. Chauhan, J.The controversy as to whether a person who is working in the Palika Centralised Service and subsequently transferred to the Development Authority can claim a right of absorption was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Raj Kumkar Wadhani v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 24 ALR 331 and the claim of the petitioner therein was rejected. This Court considered the effect and impact of the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; the provisions of Sections 5-A and 59 of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the 'Act, 1973'); provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter called as the 'Act, 1959'); the provisions of Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'Act', 1961'); and the Ordinance Nos. 19 of 1984, 10 of 1985 and Act No. 21 of 1985 having bearing on the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, 1973.2. Another Division Bench while hearing a writ petition placed r...
Purnima Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC293
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Srimati Sunita Agarwal Advocate on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 1.2. Purnima Singh, the petitioner, claims to have appeared in the Entrance Examinations conducted by the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur for admission to B.Ed. course for the academic session 2004-05. The result of the said examination was declared on 21.7.2004. The petitioner having cleared the entrance examination was issued a call letter for councilling and for that purpose she was required to appear at University Campus on 3.8.2004. On 3.7.2004 the Head of B.Ed. Department refused admission to the petitioner in B.Ed. course on the ground that the certificates of Rashtriya Sewa Yojana (National Service Scheme) (hereinafter referred to as N.S.S.) enclosed by her for the purposes of claiming weightage of 15 marks because of her having worked for more than 240 hours under the Na...
U.P. State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC415
V.K. Shukla, J.1. U.P. State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, has approached this Court assailing the validity of the award dated 05.10.1996, directing reinstatement of Mahesh Chandra Sharma with back wages in the petitioners' establishment.2. Brief background of the case as has been disclosed in the writ petition is that Mahesh Chandra Sharma had worked only for 203 days at petitioners' establishment, and even during this 203 days, he worked for 73 days with Vidyut Vitran Khand, Rural Dehradun with effect from December, 1989 to March 1990, and further he was member of Hydroelectric Employees' union, Dehradun, and through the said union industrial dispute had been raised questioning termination of 57 employees. Said reference was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 10 of 1992, which was decided along with Adjudication No. 9 of 1992 on 22.01.1996. During pendency of aforesaid two references, wherein Mahesh Chandra Sharma was only party, Mahesh Chandra Sharma raised anoth...
Suresh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1383; 2005(1)ESC424; (2005)1UPLBEC457
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. A reference to the Larger Bench has been made on the issue as to whether a single incident can be the basis for passing a detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act) and as to whether the Lucknow Bench of this Court has rightly decided the case vide order dated 30.8.2001, in Writ Petition No. 315 (HC) of 2001, Duksheshwar Singh alias Babbu Singh v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Basti and Ors.2. The facts of the case as given in the detention order of the petitioner are that the petitioner along with his associates looted a Bus No. UP 53 L 1442 while going from Basti to Lucknow on 16.3.2001, having a large number of passengers, at the point of country-made pistal (katta), threatening the Driver of the Bus and the passengers. One passenger was robbed of Rs. 5.6 lacs. The Driver was asked on gun point to stop the Bus and the robbers ran away with the booty. The police came on the spot and the petitioner along with other co-accused ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »