Allahabad Court December 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.
Deo NaraIn Son of Lakshan Vs. Additional Collector,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC433
V.C. Misra, J.Heard Shri Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri V.K. Singh learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at length. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents till date. 1. The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings started against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Rule 115 of the Rules framed thereunder with the allegation that the petitioner was at one time in unauthorized occupation of the land in question plot No. 224 admeasuring 1.10 Biswas and plot No. 225 admeasuring 10.1 Biswas of Gaon Sabha-respondent No. 3 as per the report of the Lekhpal dated 25.1.1983. A show cause notice under Form 49-Ka was issued as to why the petitioner be not evicted from the plots in question and damages be not imposed against him. A reply was filed by the petitioner stating therein that he had never occupied or possessed th...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kuldeep Kapoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)69
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. The Tribunal, Delhi, 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 Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the CWT under Section 25(2) ?'The reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :2. The respondent is an individual. For the assessment years in question the assessment was completed under Section 16(3) of the Act vide order dt. 24th July, 1984 and 22nd March, 1985, respectively determining taxable net wealth at Rs. 11,57,300 and Rs. 11,24,000. The returned wealth of the respondent was accepted but for addition of Rs. 50,000 made in each of the two years in respect of the value of immovable property known as Shah Theatre, shown at Rs. 13,00,000. The WTO noted that the same property was valued at...
U.P. (Rohelkhand Tarai) Ganna Beej Evam Vikas Nigam Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN539(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, 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 the Tribunal was right in holding that under section 10(29) only income derived from the letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, commodities was exempt.2. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that 38 per cent of the assessee's income pertained to the marketing of sugarcane seeds.'2. We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing counsel for the revenue.3. The reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83. It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that the questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of decisions given by this court in ITR No. 86 of 1985, CIT v. U.P. Rohelkh Tarai Ganna Beej Evam Vikas Nigam dated 3-9-2004, ITR...
Mukesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC183; (2005)1UPLBEC439
Shishir Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 9.7.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to transfer the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 9.7.2004. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is working as Inspector (Station House Officer) at Police Station G.R.P., Varanasi, has been transferred by order dated 9.7.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) from G.R.P., Varanasi to Office of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Allahabad.2. The ground of the challenge by the petitioner regarding petitioner's transfer is that the petitioner has been transferred only on political ground and on the basis of the instructions issued by the Chief Minister, on the request of the respondent No, 5 who is an office bearer of the ruling party. The further case of the petitioner is that o...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1948; 2005(1)ESC242; [2005(104)FLR596]; (2005)2UPLBEC1305
Shishir Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 3 and the order, dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby Rs. 98,125.00 have been deducted from the gratuity and commutation amount in the order of revision of pay of the petitioner. The fact arising out of the present writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Overseer on 5.12.1960 in U.P. Lok Nirman Vibhag and later on the petitioner was made permanent as Junior Engineer subsequently to the post. The petitioner retired on the aforesaid post on 31.10.1997. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs. 11,300.00 per month since 1.1.1997. The method of fixation of pension is an average of last month of salary drawn multiplied by number of years of service (subject to maximum 33 years) divided by 66. In the case of petitioner, the amou...
Niranjan Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC354
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, Sri Kripa Shanker, Sri Shailendra, Sri Prakash Padia, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri Anoop Barnwal, Shri A.S. Rai and Sri O.P. Shukla, learned Counsels for petitioners and Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Standing Counsel for the State respondents.2. This second batch of writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants to the Special Basic Training Certificate 2004 (in short Special B.T.C. 2004). The petitioners have challenged the Select List declared on 27.5.2004 and have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to send them for training for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board.3. The U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, provides for establishment of Board of Basic Education to organise, co-ordinate and control basic education in U.P. to establish and control schools for basic education and teachers training, to raise standards an...
Virendar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1964
1. This appeal was preferred by Virendar Singh, appellant, against his conviction under Sections 302, 452 and 307, I.P.C. and consequent sentences of imprisonment for life, one year R.I. and 7 years R.I. passed by Sri P.C. Jain, I Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, on 8-4-1980 in S. T. No. 474 of 1979.2. The prosecution story, as contained in the F.I.R., is as under ;Ghashi Ram son of Ram Dayal, a farmer, has his house in the east of the village. He is a resident of village Baragaon. According to him some 20-25 days ago appellant Virendra Singh son of Ganga Singh assaulted his nephew Ram Das, who used to ply rickshaw, with a knife. The appellant was challaned in that case. On 15-7-1979, at about 9.00 a.m., the appellant, with a single barrel gun in his hand, came inside the Chappar of his house, hurtling abuses. He shouted at him that he should turn out Ram Chander from his house. He will not leave him alive. He has come after killing his father. Immediately after that he opened ...
Ram Agya (D.) Through L.R. and ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad (D.) Through L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1850
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 13.5.1980 passed by IInd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No. 364 of 1977 Ram Agya v. Bhagwati Prasad and Ors., dismissing the appellants' appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 22.6.1977 passed by Munsif, Akbarpur in Regular Suit No. 277 of 1969, Bhagwati Prasad and Ors. v. Ram Agra and Ors..2. I have heard Shri Sharad Dwivedi holding brief of Shri D.P. Dwivedi for the appellants and Shri A.S. Chaudhari for the respondents.Plaintiffs' case3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 with the allegations that Bhikari was the owner in possession of ahata No. 21 and 22 situated in Village Kodara. Bhikari had also his residential house there. Bhikari died issueless leaving his widow Smt. Anarkali. Plaintiff No. 1 Bhagwati and his two sons plaintiffs Nos. 2 ...
Cit Vs. Subhash Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: [2006]150TAXMAN486(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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest derived by the minors on the investments made with the firm was not as a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership and that it could noi be included in the assessee's income under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction under section 80V of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the amount of interest paid by the assessee to the firm, in which he is a partner ?'2. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue and Sri Shakeel Ahmad for the respondent-assessee.3. The reference relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85. So far a...
Cit Vs. Indian Metal Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: [2006]156TAXMAN70(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi 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 the Honble Tribunal is correct in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow depreciation on generator at the rate of 20 per cent?'2. Briefly stated that facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows :The present Reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85. During this year the respondent-assessee had claimed depreciation at the rate of 20 per cent on generator which was disallowed by the Income Tax Officer. However, in appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the claim of the respondent-assessee. The revenues appeal before the Tribunal has failed.3. We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the revenue.4. We find that in the Appendix I, which provides for rates of depreciation on different items during the relevant assessme...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »