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.
Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN94(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. Both the appeals filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by U.P Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'Nigam') raise common substantial question of law.2. Income Tax Appeal No. 3 of 1999 relates to the assessment year 1995-96 whereas Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 1999 relates to the assessment year 1994-95. in both the appeals the following substantial questions of law with the difference in the figure of receipts have been raised :(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the appellant-company is not the 'Government and its income', therefore, was not outside the provisions of Income Tax Act ?(ii) Whether on the due consideration of the true nature of receipts amounting to Rs. 47,23,315 and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in affirming taxability thereof, as income, in the case of assessee?(iii) Whether there was any materia...
Arun Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Ito
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN651(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. By separate petitions filed under article 226 of tile Constitution of India, Arun Kumar Maheshwari, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 538 of 2001; Amit Kumar Maheshwari, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 539 of 2001 and Ajay Kumar Maheshwari, petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 540 of 2001 seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 15-3-2001 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Bijnor, relating to the assessment year 1995-96. Civil Mise. Writ Petition No. 709 of 2001 has been filed by six persons, namely, Lalit Kumar Agrawal, Raj Kamal Agrawal, Atul Kumar Agrawal who are brothers, and their wives seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing separate notices issued to them on 15-3-2001 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Bijnor, respondent No. 1, under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), relating to the assessment year 1996-97.Since all the four petition...
Cwt Vs. J.K. Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN208(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth 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 Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee was not liable to wealth-tax on the value of his interest in the Association of persons?'2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.4. This court in WTR No. 193 of 1994 decided on 27-10-2004 had held that the respondent-assessee is liable to wealth tax on the value of his interest in the association of persons.5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the respondent-assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs....
Escorts Limited Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST326(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 July 15, 1996 relating to the assessment year, 1980-81.2. Applicant is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tractors. The factory of the applicant was situated at Faridabad in the State of Haryana and from there the goods have been despatched to various States. Assessment proceedings had been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, on the basis of the information received from the check-post that the applicant have obtained 109 form XXXIV from the various entry check-posts, but could not surrender the said form XXXIV at the exit check-post. Assessing authority treated the sale of the goods relating to such alleged form XXXIV within the State of U.P. by the applicant and, accordingly, estimated...
Gyan Prakash Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC388; 2005(1)ESC125; [2005(104)FLR777]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is a class IV employee in the Transport Department. He was originally appointed on ad hoc basis on 12.5.1982 in District Pauri, from where he was transferred to Allahabad. He has been working as such without any interruption or break. His services have been regularised by an order dated 13.9.1999. He preferred Writ Petition No. 46371 of 1999 claiming promotion to a class III post as he fulfilled all the requisite qualifications as prescribed under U.P. Transport Department (Ministerial Service) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Rules).4. After exchange of affidavits, the writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the respondents that he should be considered against promotional quota for appointment in Class III cadre vide order and judgment dated 10.1.2001. The...
Ghanshyam Kishor Bajpayee and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC379; 2005CriLJ1985; 2005(1)ESC115
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The controversy regarding the appointments, renewal and removal of the District Government Counsel (hereinafter referred to as D.G.C. in short) has been the subject matter of several writ petitions over the last two decades and the reason is not far to see. In the last 20 years or so, the Government has changed hands half a dozen times. Whenever a Government changes or a new Government takes over, an effort is made to appoint Government counsel of their own choice. The appointments are not made on merit, but on the basis of political affiliations. While appointing their own, the new Government generally cancels the appointment or refuses to renew the appointment of the existing D.G.C. This has developed into an unhealthy practice and, time and again, this Court had been directing that meritorious appointments should be made and that the appointments should not be made on the basis of political affiliation or on the basis of caste or creed. The stand now taken by th...
Surendra Malik Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC359; 2005(1)AWC961
Poonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri S.N. Verma, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Sharad Malviya, counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Ashthana for the contesting respondent.2. The facts of the case is that the respondent No. 3 landlord filed S.C.C. Suit No. 74 of 2000 for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop. A written statement was filed by the petitioner denying plaint allegations and also that the building in question is 60 years old, as such it is governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit as statement in chief with an application that the defendant-petitioner be directed to cross-examine the plaintiff. On 27.7.2000 an application was moved by the landlord-respondent praying that the application C-33 which was filed by way of examination-in-chief may be dismissed as not pressed. The Judge Small Cause Courts vide order dated 28.7.2004, dismissed the said application as not pressed. The petitioner-tenant moved an ap...
Ravindra Pratap Vs. Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)1UPLBEC748
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Rahul Sripat Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and the Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3-State.2. The petitioner, Ravindra Pratap was admitted to 3 years Degree Course of Diploma in Electronic Engineering under Multi-Point Entry and Credit System (hereinafter referred to as MPECS) in the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the IERT) for the academic session 1998-99. The petitioner failed to clear examination of the subject of Analog in Electronics 3rd semester and has also failed in two papers in 4th semester examination. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Director of the IERT dated 10.8.2004 whereby the Director with reference to Rule 15-B of the Multi-Point Entry and Credit System Examination Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) adopted by the IERT since 1993, provided that no further chance/attempt...
Ram Saran Vs. Smt. Khazani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC397; 2005(1)AWC850
Janardan Sahai, J. 1. A suit for possession and damages for use and occupation was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent, which has been decreed by both the courts below applying the provisions' of Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The plaint was presented on 20.5.2002 but it is not in dispute that the full court fee was not then paid. The suit was registered on 27.8.2002 after payment of court fee on that very day. The amendments by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act 22 of 2001 had come into force with effect from 1st July, 2002 which was after the presentation of the plaint and before the registration of the suit. Summons were issued on 2.9.2002 fixing 3.10.2002 for appearance of the defendant and for filing of the written statement and 10.10.2002 for issues. The defendant/appellant appeared and sought adjournment on 10.10.2002 for filing the written statement. The Court granted time. On 21.1.2003 the case was adjourned to enable the defendant to file written statement and ...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC209
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Sri B.N. Rai learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 22.1.1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Meerut by which he has cancelled the order of regularisation of the service of the petitioner as L.T. Grade teacher in Sanatan Dharam Inter College, Kankar Kheda, Meerut Cantt. Meerut vide order dated 21.5.1983 ; and the consequential orders dated 24.12.1992 and 18.1,1993. The petitioner has further prayed for a restraint order to the respondents not to interfere in his functioning as L.T. Grade teacher and for payment of salary in regular grade.3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis on 1.8.1982. His appointment was approved by the Director of Education on 18,8.1982 with effect from 2.8.1982 to 31.1.1983 and thereafter upto 20.5.1983 until a regularly selected candidate j...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »