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.
Beche Lal Vs. Commissioner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1605
V.C. Misra, J.1. Heard Shri M. D, Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 inspite of notice having been served upon it.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.11.1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Bareilly division, Bareilly in Appeal No. 71 of 1997. The opposite party No. 3 was granted a licence under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) for the purposes of distribution of sugar and kerosene on fair price shop to the members of Gaon Sabha, the allegation was made against respondent No. 3 for not distributing the sugar and kerosene properly to the residents of the Gaon Sabha and was selling the scheduled commodities in black market after charging excessive price f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swarup Vegetable Products India Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)595; [2005]277ITR60(All)
P. Krishna, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, at the instance of the Income-tax Department has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court :--'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 1,91,917 on the plant and machinery of vegetable ghee unit as these were not actually used for the full year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company running a sugar factory, distillery, confectionery and vanaspati units. It did not operate the plant during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. But it claimed depreciation on plant and machinery on vegetable ghee unit. The claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer to the extent of Rs. 1,91,917 as the plant and machinery was not actually used for the full year in respect o...
Hari Prasad Gopi Krishna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)676; [2005]278ITR592(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, at the instance of assessee has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court :'Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the proceedings had been validly initiated under Section 148 in the instant case ?'2. The asst. yr. 1971-72 is involved in the present reference. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee which was a branch of M/s Gopi Krishna & Co. The validity of the notice was unsuccessfully challenged before the ITO. The case of the assessee was that the notice was not issued in the correct name. It was issued in the name of Hari Prasad Govind Krishna, which is a branch of M/s Gopi Krishna & Co. The notice should have been issued in the name of head office, i.e., Gopi Krishna & Co. However, the said plea of the assessee found favour with the AAC. The Tribunal has reversed the order of the AAC and ...
Biswanath Prasad and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR265(All)
R.K. Agrawal J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act on the ground that it was virtually a review application ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The reference relates to the assessment year 1977-78. During the assessment year in question the Income-tax Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs. 55,383 out of interest claimed by the applicant on the ground that part of the borrowings, have not been utilised by the applicant for the purposes of its business. The disallowance has been upheld by the Tribunal. The application filed under Section 256(1) of the Act, seeking reference has been rejected by the Tribunal...
Govind Narayan Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC439; 2005(1)ESC555
Vineet Saran, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the District Cooperative Federation Ltd., Kanpur Nagar in the year 1972. Thereafter in the year 2002 he was instructed to run Wheat Purchase Centre at Rampur in Kanpur Nagar. On certain irregularities having been found in the working of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, who was the Incharge Secretary of the District Co-operative Federation Ltd., Kanpur Nagar, passed order of dismissal of the petitioner on 20.5.2003. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the dismissal order dated 20.5.2003 as well as for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and pay him his salary month by month and also arrears of salary with effect from 1.1.1993.2. I have heard Sri M. P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-District Co-operative Federation a...
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC1015
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed by the Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Meerut for quashing the recovery Certificate/Order dated 3.4.1991 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (respondent No. 1) on the ground that proceedings for calculation and settlement of accounts are still pending.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri Omvir Singh Malik (respondent No. 2) claimed Clerical Grade-I in the establishment of the Mills w.e.f. 1.2.1985. The alleged dispute with regard to the claim of Clerical Grade-I was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-V at Meerut by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4. The Labour Court by its award dated 12.11.1990 given in Adjudication Case No. 16/86 held that respondent No. 2 Shri Omvir Singh Malik was entitled to the designation of Clerk (Grade-I) w.e.f. 1.2.1985. The operative part of the...
Brij Pal Singh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC557; [2005(105)FLR75]; (2005)1UPLBEC1022
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the award dated 22.10.1991 in Adjudication Case No. 32/90 passed by the Labour Court (II), U.P., Meerut.3. Petitioner No. 1 was employed as Seasonal Weighment Clerk in Mawana Sugar Works, Mawana, District Meerut during the seasons 1982-83 to 1985-86. According to the petitioner-workman he was not employed in the season of 1986-87, which started w.e.f. 24.10.1986. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the aforesaid Labour Court.4. The case of the employers before the Labour Court was that the petitioner-workman was employed in the season of 1985-86 from 1.1.1986 to 13.3.1986. The season of 1985-86 lasted on 4.4.1986. Thus, the workman did not work for full season or in the later half of the aforesaid season of 1985-86, He also did not report for duty in the next season of 1986-87. It was further the case of the employers that the workma...
Vinesh Kumar Mehta S/O Shiv NaraIn Mehta Vs. Presiding Officer Labour ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC680; [2005(104)FLR338]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned award dated 11th October, 2001 passed by the Labour Court (I), U.P., Kanpur- respondent No. 1 respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 146 of 1994 by which the following reference with regard to termination of service has been answered by the Labour Court against the workman.D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed Jh oh-ds-esgrk iq= Jh Lo- ,l-,u- esgrk] ,fj;k eSustj dks fnukad 30&4&82 ls dk;Zls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fdl frfFk,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk **2. The woodcut profile of the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court in his written statement was that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Representative by Ms. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Ltd- respondent No. 2 in its Branch Office at C- 11, Site-1, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur on 15th March. He was promoted as Area ...
Harnam Mishra Vs. Ram Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1845
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by IVth Addition District Judge, Hardoi in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1981 filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1981, passed by IVth Addl. Munsif in Suit No. 171 (W) of 1980.2. I have heard Shri K.C. Tripathi for the appellants. Nobody appeared from the side of the respondents to argue the appeal.Case of the plaintiffs-respondents :3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the members of Joint Hindu Family and they owned their house as Joint Hindu Family property detailed in Schedule 'Aa' of the plaint. The item No. 3 of the Schedule of the plaint was sold by the plaintiffs jointly 15 years back. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 Ram Kumar started living in another house which was purchased by him exclusively. Plaintiff No. 2 Ram Ratan started living in the house shown at item No. 1 of the Schedule 'Aa' along with his mother and Satish Chandra the son...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Meerut Vs. Meerut Race Club
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN361(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court:In favour of assessee.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that an Association of persons cannot be assessed to wealth-tax under the Wealth Tax Act and thereby upholding the annulment of wealth-tax assessments on the assessee by the ACC ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77.3. Briefly stated that facts giving rise to the present Reference are as followsThe respondent is an association of persons. It is a Club and has been assessed in the status of an association of persons. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulled the assessments holding that under the Wealth Tax Act an association of persons cannot be assessed to Wealth-tax which order has been upheld by the Tribunal.4. We have heard ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »