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.
The Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. S/S Sharma Coal Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2008)16VST517(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These two revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 13.4.1994 relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively. The following common question has been raised and argued in the present revisions:-'Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that freight is not a part of taxable turnover despite the fact that Section 2 (i) of the U. P. Trade Ta Act indicate otherwise?'2. The dealer opp. party (hereinafter referred to as 'dealer') was carrying on the business of coal and was registered under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. Dealer claimed itself to be a Coal Agent under the Coal Control Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Coal Control Order) and stated that the license in Form-B was issued in this regard. In the assessment years under consideration, dealer had imported coal against its own Form 31 and supplied c...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC672
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 29.1.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Muzaffar Nagar and the order dated 6.9.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree has been rejected and the revision against the same has also been dismissed.2. The dispute relates to a portion of House No. 618 Civil Lines South, Bagh Pyarelal near D.A.V. College, Muzaffar Nagar. The respondent No. 3 is the owner landlord of the said house and the petitioner is a tenant of one of the rooms of the said house at monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. The landlord respondent No. 3 filed suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 1996. In the said suit the defendant after initial contest failed to appear and, therefore, the trial Court directed that the case may be proceed ex-...
Banarsi and ors. Vs. Incharge District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1628
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. Cynosure of attention is the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Incharge District Judge, Gonda in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2004, Balrampur Chini Mills Limited v. Naseem and Ors., the correctness of which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.2. The suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the opposite party No. 3 along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of ex parte injunction. The trial court having not been satisfied on the material did not pass an ex parte temporary injunction, but directed to issue notice to the defendants-petitioners.3. The plaintiffs-opposite parties aggrieved by an order to issue notice, preferred an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r), C.P.C. The appellate court, after hearing the parties decided the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. granting temporary injunction vide impugned order dated 14.10.2004. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.10.2004, responde...
Cit Vs. Shervani Sugar Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN264(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. 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, the Tribunal is justified in holding that amount of Rs. 8,75,599 realized by the assessee in excess of the sale price fixed by the State Government was not a trading receipt in the assessment year 1974-75?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,68,956 realised by the assessee as Excise Duty on the excess amount of sale price which was never refunded to the Government/parties is not the income of the assessee in the year under consideration?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:The present reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. During the year in question the resp...
Cit Vs. Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN72(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the gross amount of interest ignoring the provisions of section 80B(5) which defines the term 'Gross total income' in such a way that it could only mean net income before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A or section 280-O and without applying the provisions of section 64?'Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The respondent-assessee is a co-operative society. During the assessment year in question it has received Rs, 67,807 by way of interest from the primary societies and had al...
J.K. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST390(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dated February 17, 1994 relating to the assessment year 1982-83 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. Short question involved in the present revision is whether the turnover of refined rapeseed oil and refined mustard oil for Rs. 2,51,568 was liable to tax at one per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act under Notification No. ST-II-1376/X-902(63)-50, dated April 1, 1968. The assessing authority levied the tax on the aforesaid sales at 10 per cent and held that under the Notification No. ST-IM376/X-902(63)-50, dated April 1, 1968, the sale of rapeseed oil and mustard oil are liable to tax at one per cent and not the turnover of refined rapeseed oil and refined mustard oil. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Tribunal also rejected the second appeal, filed by the applicant.3. Heard learned Counsel for th...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC247
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the award dated 12.6.2001 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 104/96.3. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Cleaner on 17.7.1981 in the Fazalganj Depot, Kanpur Region of the petitioner-Corporation. He claims that he was qualified for the post of Assistant Store Keeper/Junior Clerk. The petitioner started taking work from him of the aforesaid post. He raised a demand for giving him the designation and pay scale of Assistant Store Keeper/Junior Clerk which was not paid heed to by the employers and as such he raised the following industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court (2), U.P., Kanpur and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 104/96 : -^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfedjes'k dqekj ;kno iq= jke n;ky ;kno in&Dyhuj;] Qtyxat fMiks] dkuiqj {ks= dksmlds dk;Z dh izfr ds vuqlkj lgk;d HkaMkjiky@dfu'Bfyfid dk i...
Prakash Chandra Sharma Vs. Nagar Palika and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All73; 2005(1)AWC890
S.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8th August, 1977 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor dismissing Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1973 and confirming judgment and decree dated 2nd June, 1973 of trial Court in Original Suit No. 92 of 1969.2. Plaintiff filed suit for prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from charging show tax from plaintiff as proposed by them with the allegation that plaintiff is doing cinema business within the limits of Municipal Board, District Bijnor. Plaintiff was served with a notice by which demand of tax from cinema show at the rate of Rs. 1.50 paise per show was claimed from him which is wholly unjustified, and it is in fact a fee which cannot be imposed unless there is an element of quid pro quo between the plaintiff and the defendants, show tax was imposed without following mandatory requirement of Sections 131 to 135 of the U.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred ...
Jagdish Prasad Alias Bhoopji Vs. Panna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC201; 2005(1)AWC440
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Present second appeal has its genesis in the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1983 passed by appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1981, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1980 passed by the trial court in Original Suit No. 163 of 1973 was affirmed.2. A brief resume of necessary facts is that the plaintiff, to begin with, instituted a suit for specific performance of contract on the premises that under the agreement defendant was called upon to execute sale deed within a span of five years on payment of sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. The plaintiff according to the facts on record, executed sale deed as against his 1/2 share of the property in question in favour of defendant No. 1 on 6.7.1968 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- subject to the stipulation as contained in the agreement that the defendant No. 1 would re-convey the property in favour of the plaintiff in case the amount of sale consideration was repaid to him within a period of five years. S...
The Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs. Sri Krishna Flour Mill
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST520(All)
Rajes Kumar, J. 1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' ) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 21.07.1994 for the assessment year 1991-92. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'Dealer' ) was running a flour mill and was involved in the manufacturing of atta, suji and chokarjlor the issuance of recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act filed an application on 23.02.1991. Assessing authority issued recognition 'certificate granting partial exemption on the purchases of wheat w.e.f. 23.02.1991. appears that dealer further moved an application claiming the exemption for the assessment years 1988-89, 89-90 and 90-91. The said application was rejected on the ground that it was infructuous as an order has already been passed on the application dated 23.02.1991 granting the recognition certificate w.e.f. 23.02.1991. Thereafter, applicant again moved an application on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »