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.
Lakhimpur Finvest Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1608
Pradeep Kant, J.1. The petitioner, a finance company, has approached this Court against the order dated 6.5.2003 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Lakhimpur Kheri, by means of which its prayer for granting fresh registration under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been rejected.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner company, which is registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has its Head Office at Lakhimpur. It deals with motor vehicle finance and, thus, supplies vehicles on the basis of hire-purchase agreement to the interested parties. The petitioner company also comes within the definition of the term 'dealer' as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act. On the basis of hire-purchase agreement, a Mahindra and Mahindra Jeep was purchased by the respondent No. 4, for which the petitioner company advanced the finances. In pursuance of the said facility of providing finances,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Andre Perrian
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)410
ORDERPrakash Krishna, J.1. The present income-tax reference is at the instance of the Department under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' against the order of the Tribunal, dt. 14th Nov., 1983 for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79.2. The following substantial questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the AAC who accepted that the salary paid to foreign technician was neither earned nor accrued in India and, therefore, it was not taxable in India ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the AAC who held that there is no relationship of employer and employees between the BHEL and the French technician and, therefore, the perquisites were also not taxable ?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor Sales Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR249(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, in law and on facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order cancelling the penalty of Rs. 37,970 imposed under Section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Officer ?2. Whether, in law and on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that all payments within the financial year 1975-76 should be taken into account for levy of penalty under Section 273(a) even if they were made in pursuance of an invalid estimate filed on March 15, 1976 ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The assessment year involved is 1976-77. The respondent which is a public limited company was asked by the Income-tax Officer by way of ...
Amrit Banaspati Co. Vs. Ito
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN833(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi 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:'(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to interest on the basis of the revised assessment order after the directions of the Appellate Authorities were given?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to interest on the excess of advance tax refundable with reference to the revised assessment and whether the interest payable on such excess up to the date of such revised assessment?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The applicant is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Vanaspati. The assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72.The Income Tax Offi...
Mehra International Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN206(All)
P. Krishna J.The petitioner, a partnership firm, has sought by means of the present petition, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated August 6-8-1999, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, in so far as it relates to the non-extension of time in respect of the late payment received from Prime Leather Enterprises, USA, for Rs. 77,121 and from M/s. Horseman, USA, for Rs. 1,88,860 and a writ of mandamus commanding the Commissioner of Income-tax to pass a fresh order under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the extension of time for payment received from the aforesaid two persons.The petitioner claims itself an exporter and is doing the export of saddlery leather and brass items to various countries outside India. It, for the assessment year 1997-98 exported the goods worth Rs. 1,07,80,835. A sum of Rs. 3,53,000 was due as outstanding from three foreign buyers as on 31-3-1997. An application for extension of tim...
Cit Vs. Tarseem Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN63(All)
Prakash Krishna, J. This reference is at the instance of the department, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question for the opinion of this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the share income from the firm was to be assessed in the hands of HUF and not individual ?'2. The facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The father of the assessee, namely, Shri Amar Nath was a partner in a firm M/s. Amar Handloom Factory, Sardhana. He died intestate on 4-6-1971 leaving a credit balance of Rs. 77,456 in the firm of M/s. Amar Handloom Factory, Sardhana. The deceased left behind his wife, two sons and three minor daughters. The assessee who is resident individual was unmarried at the time of death of his father, received Rs. 15,000 as his share from the credit balance of Rs. 77,456. This amount was transferred to the persona...
Kahan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC54
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the Respondent-U. P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, Amroha Unit, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar. The controversy in the present writ petition is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. Admittedly in the service record of the petitioner maintained by the respondent-Corporation the date of birth of the petitioner was always shown as 8.5.1946 and the date of his appointment as 8.12.1967. The controversy arose when in the service record of the petitioner his date of birth had been corrected by the respondent-Corporation on 18.5.1998 to be 19 years as in the year 1963 which, according to the respondent-Corporation, was recorded in the provident fund record maintained in the office of Provident Fund Commissioner. According to the respondent-Corporation, on the basis of the corrected date of birth, the petitioner would retire on 30.10.2004, on completion of 60 years of age, regarding which a notice had been issued to the petition...
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1378
ORDERAmar Saran, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.2. In this case, the revisionists were initially charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 731-A of 2001, but later a charge has been framed against them also under Section 307, I.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the said application has been made by way of counter-blast to a charge-sheet, which was submitted against the opposite party No. 2 and others at the instance of the revisionists under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C.3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has confined his prayer to the effect that the revisionists be permitted to continue on the same bail subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Although by order of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 5), Saharanpur dated 21-10-2004 the charge is to be framed in this case under S...
Gauri Shanker and ors. Vs. Iiird Additional District Judge and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC347
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. This review petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 17.9.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby this Court rejected the restoration application and also against judgment/order dated 7.10.1994 by which second appeal No. 1396 of 1982 was dismissed for default of Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel then appearing for the appellant.2. Aforestated Second Appeal had been instituted in this Court in the year 1982 against the judgment and order dated 29.1.1982 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge Ballia. Subsequently, the appeal came to be dismissed for default on 7.10.1994. This gave rise to filing of restoration application, which was also rejected, on 17.9.1997. Thereafter, the matter travelled to Apex Court and the Special Leave petition preferred before the Apex Court also came to be dismissed in limine on 22.12.1997. It is in the above backdrop that review petition has come to be filed before this Court on the strength of oral obs...
Rajendra Nath Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC670
Vikram Nath, J.1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.4.1987 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr whereby he has decreed the suit of respondent No. 4 for relief of token damages and for a direction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (defendant No. 1 in the suit) to allot the premises in dispute to any needy person. The petition is further directed against the order dated 19.8.1987 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby pursuant to the direction issued by the Civil Judge, referred to above, he has declared vacancy in the premises in dispute.2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the landlord of House No. 268 (new No. 226) Pattharwali Gali, Deputy Ganj, Bulandshahr. In proceedings under Section 16 (1) of UP. Act No. XIII of 1972 Rent Control and Eviction Officer, vide judgment dated 1.2.1979 (Annexure-6 to the petition) released the premises in favour of the landlord after rejecting the application for allotment f...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »