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.
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rama Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR69(All)
1. 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 Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on truck at 40 per cent. as against 30 per cent. allowed by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notification dated July 24, 1980, is applicable for the assessment year 1980-81, when the relevant previous year expired before the issue of the said notification ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :3. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year which ended on March 31, 1980. The respondent-assessee c...
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR259(All)
1. 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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing various expenses against the income from other sources ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent is a co-operative sugar mill. During the assessment year in question it did not have any business activity as the manufacturing activity did not start in this year. It was in the process of erection/construction. The funds which it received were invested and it had interest income from those investments. The respondent had incurred expenses for the maintenance of office and for the planning of construction, etc. The Income-tax Officer did not allow any expense out of interest income as there was no business done. However, the...
R.P. Srivastava and anr. Vs. Addl. District Magistrate (R.C.O.) (Ca) a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2395
Kamal Kishore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 28.10.1987 and 24.11.1987 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 declaring vacancy in respect of the shop in question. The petitioners are the sitting tenant and the shop in question was let out to their father about more than forty five years by the father of respondent No. 3, the landlord. The respondent No. 3, the landlord, had earlier filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 against the sitting tenant which was rejected by the prescribed authority by an order dated 10.12.1976. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by an order dated 31.10.1977 passed by the District Judge Lucknow. The deceased petitioner No. 2, mother of the present petitioners carried out business of foreign liquor in the shop in pursuance of licence granted by State Government. After introducing auction system for liquor trade, the liquor business was continued for about two ...
Cit (Central), Kanpur Vs. Shri Baldeoji Maharaj Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN241(All)
ORDER1. 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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of section 13 are not applicable in this case and that the assessee-trust is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The present reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The respondent-assessee is a trust and it claimed exemption in respect of its income under section 11 of the Act which was not granted by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that it had advanced moneys to the firm M/s. J.K. Bankers on interest at the rate of 9.5 per cent per annum. The Income Tax Officer found that the respondent-assessee had received a total amount of Rs. 7...
Ccit Vs. Rama Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN917(All)
1. 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 Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on truck @ 40 per cent as against 30 per cent allowed by the Income Tax Officer and upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the notification dated 24-7-1980 is applicable for the assessment year 1980-81, when the relevant previous year expired before the issue of said notification?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The present reference relates to the assessment year 1980-81, the previous year which ended on 31-3-1980. The respondent-assessee claimed depreciation @ 40 p...
Sri Radha Raman Mahavidhyalaya, Adarah Vidhyapith Vs. State of U.P. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC69; 2005(1)ESC149; (2005)1UPLBEC401
Arun Tandon, J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Ajit Kumar Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.2. Sri Radha Raman Mahavidhyalaya, Adarah Vidhyapith, Ruhipur, District Ghazipur through its Manager has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent University to permit the regular students of the petitioner institution to appear in B.A. Part-I Examination for the academic session 2003-2004 and for the said purpose, if necessary, to conduct supplementary examination.3. Sri Radha Raman Mahavidhyalaya, Adarah Vidhyapith, Ruhipur, District Ghazipur applied for being granted affiliation in the subjects of Hindi, Geography, Medieval History, Political Science, Education and Social Science under the self financing scheme with Sri Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. After obtaining prior approval from the Chancellor of the University, the petitioner i...
NaraIn Das and ors. Vs. Smt. Pukkha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC135; 2005(1)AWC59
S.U. Khan, J.1. This is landlords' writ petition. The only point involved in this writ petition is as to whether Sri S. C. Srivastava, Munsif Magistrate had Jurisdiction to act as prescribed authority under U. P. Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) on 8.10.1977, when he allowed the release application No. 201 of 1974 filed by petitioner landlord against tenant respondent under Section 21 of the Act. Against the aforesaid order dated 8.10.1977 an appeal was filed by the tenant which was allowed by District Judge, Jhansi against which landlord earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 10115 of 1978. The said writ petition was allowed on 27.2.1980 and matter was remanded to District Judge for hearing and deciding the appeal afresh. It was only after remand that the tenant raised the question of jurisdiction before the appellate court. The appellate court accepted the plea of want of Jurisdiction of Sri S. C. Srivastava raised by the tenant in appeal and by order dated ...
Gopal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC321
ORDERS.U. Khan, J.1. In order to mitigate the hardship of both the parties which they are facing and are likely to face in future in pursuing unnecessary litigation in mutation proceedings and in order to expedite the decision of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to Tahsildar (Judicial) Ballia to decide the mutation matter regarding mutation of the name over the agricultural land left behind by late Mahabir Tiwari resident of village Jeerabasti, district Ballia expeditiously. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Prabhawati Tiwari is widow of late Mahabir Tiwari and petitioner Gopal Tiwari is nephew of late Mahabir Tiwari. Petitioner claims the right over the land left behind by the deceased on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased. The case was registered before Tahsildar as case No. 667. Any revision or appeal pending anywhere against any order passed in the said case by Tahsildar shall stand consigned to record with effect from today. Both the ...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. Vth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC101; 2005(1)AWC51
S.U. Khan, J.1. Petitioner is a tenant against whom previous landlord owner Sri Ramji Lal filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent being S. C. C. Suit No. 66 of 1975 which was decreed by JSCC, Khurja, district Bulandshahr on 10.9.1977. Thereafter on 12.9.1979 Ramji Lal filed Execution Case No. 100 of 1979 for execution of the decree before Munsif Khurja after obtaining transfer certificate from JSCC Khurja. After 2 days of filing execution application, i.e., on 14.9.1979 Ramji Lal sold the property in dispute through registered sale deed to Vijay Kumar respondent No. 3.2. The tenant petitioner asserted that on 18.11.1979 Ramji Lal entered into compromise with him through which rent was enhanced from Rs. 40 per month to Rs. 60 per month and the tenancy of the tenant petitioner was continued, however, the said compromise was not filed in the Court as Ramji Lal resized therefrom. The petitioner filed objections under Section 47 and Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. (Misc. Case...
Lalit Mohan Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC737
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. It is not necessary to call for counter affidavit in view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in the present writ petition.2. The petitioner, Sri Lalit Mohan Agrawal, claiming himself to be the Manager of Champa Agrawal Kanya Vidyalaya, Aligarh has filed this writ petition against the order dated 11th October, 2004 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh, whereby single operation of accounts has been directed in the institution as also against the notice issued by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra dated 20th October, 2004, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to show-cause as to why a Prabandh Sanchalak be not appointed in the institution, in view of the report of the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh dated 18th October, 2004.3. So far as the order passed by the District Inspector...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »