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.
R.K. Dewan and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005All202; 2005(3)AWC2328; 2005(1)ESC581
1. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality of the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioners with a prayer to quash the recovery citations, dated 11.12.2004, issued to the petitioners on the ground that the recovery proceedings are without jurisdiction and reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain v. PICUP and Ors., (2004) 6 JT 305.2. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were the Directors of the Company and had also executed personal guarantee for the loan amount in favour of respondent No. 3. The said petitioners continued as Directors. Petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 are the sons of the persons who were either the Directors of the Company and some have also executed personal guarantee along with the other Directors in favour of respondent No. 3. Along with the supplementary affidavit filed on 21.12.2004, the petitioners have filed a copy of the hypothecation deed and Photostat copy of the personal guarantee exec...
Shivalik Sahkari Avas Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2331; 2005(1)ESC625
1. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality of the order, dated 11.10.2004, Annexure-11 to the writ petition, on the ground that the reasons given for rejecting the representation suffer from manifest error of law inasmuch as the respondent-State Government has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Sections 6 and 12 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.2. We have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.3. The matter was taken up by us on 2.12.2004 on which date a request was made by the learned Standing Counsel for receiving instructions and then the matter was taken up on 8.12.2004, 10.12.2004 and finally heard on 13.12.2004 with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elitos S.P.A. as Agent of Mr. Ciro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(All)638; [2006]280ITR495(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. 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 on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right to hold that the expenditure in question on payment of salaries was not borne by the permanent establishment in India and so the employee in question would not be exigible to Indian Taxation in terms of Article 16(2)(c) of the Tax Avoidance Agreement?'2. The present Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986-87.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are follows:-All the respondents-assessees are non-residents working in India for ELITOS S.P.A. They claimed before the Assessing Officer that all their cases are covered by Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy and their respective salaries were not taxable with r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Satish Medical Agencies
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: [2005]277ITR394(All)
1. 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 the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable in respect of the trading addition of Rs. 18,446 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The facts giving rise to the present reference are that the respondent is a dealer in medicine. On October 25, 1979, there was a search on the business premises of the respondent as well as on the residential premises of its partners. During the search certain purchase vouchers were found which were not recorded in the regular books of account. Similarly, certain papers were found which showed that some sales had also not been recorded. During the course of the assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer took recourse to the...
Cit Vs. Elitos S.P.A.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN210(All)
1. 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 on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right to hold that the expenditure in question on payment of salaries was not borne by the permanent establishment in India and so the employee in question would not be exigible to Indian Taxation in terms of article 16(2)(c) of the Tax Avoidance Agreement?'The present reference relates to assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.2. Briefly stated the f acts giving rise to the present reference are follows:All the respondents-assessees are non-residents working in India for Elitos S.P.A. They claimed before the assessing officer that all their cases are covered by Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy and their respective salaries were not taxable with reference to article 16(...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 3(2006)BC98
1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in T.A. No. 382 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant-Bank has been dismissed to the effect that the settlement amount of Rs. 10.40 lacs had already been deposited by the defendant-respondent with the Bank. 1. The respondent-defendant No. 1 is a liquor contractor and he approached the appellant-Bank, Johnstongjanj Branch, Allahabad for a loan of Rs. 9.00 lacs for his business and also promised to pay the said loan amount with interest. The defendant Nos. 2 to 15 and late Shri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal stood surety for repayment of the loan amount and also deposited their Title Deeds of immovable properties, details of which were given in the foot of the plaint itself. On 9th July, 1994 such loan was advanced to the defendant No. 1 by the Bank for repayment with interest @ 17% per annum with quarterly rest. The usual documents fo...
Ram Autar Agrawal Vs. A.D.J., (Special) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC419; 2005(1)AWC833
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the orders dated 25th April, 1989, passed by the prescribed authority and 14th February, 1990, passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed by the appellate authority.2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is admittedly the landlord and the contesting respondent is the tenant of the shop in question. The petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for release of the shop in dispute in his favour on the ground that his son Sandeep Kumar, who could not study beyond High School and failed in Intermediate, has to be settled in the sweetmeat business, which will be opened after the shops is released in favour of the landlord. In the application it is further s...
Mohammad Azmal Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC405; 2005(1)AWC806
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant, who was defendant before the trial court, challenges the order of the trial court dated 7th August, 2004, whereby the trial court has rejected the application 7C filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking amendment in the pleadings on the ground that the application is barred by principles of res judicata. The aforesaid application has been decided by the trial court as per direction issued by this Court, whereby this Court directed the trial court to decide issue No. 2 afresh vide its judgment and order dated 30th April, 2001 in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7703 of 1987, Champa Lal Jain v. Additional District Judge, Lalitpur and Ors.. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court runs as under :'Thus, the tenant cannot be given advantage that the Act became applicable during the pendency of the suit. It is...
Panch Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC853
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare senior advocate assisted by Sri V, K. Jaiswal advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vidya Sagar appearing for the contesting respondent No. 6.2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8th October, 2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority Sub-Divisional Officer, Mirzapur directing for recount of the votes in an election petition filed by the respondent No. 6 under Section 12C of the U, P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') praying for setting aside the election of the petitioner as Gram Pradhan of village Aniruddh Purab Patti.3. Brief facts pf the. case necessary for deciding this writ petition are :Election for the office of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Aniruddh Purab Patti was held on 14.6.2000 In which the petitioner and the respondents No. 6 to 25 contested. Count of votes started on 24.6.2000. The returning officer declared the petitioner as elected candidate on 25.6.2000. Immediately...
Shahid Khan Vs. Radhey Shyam Chaurasiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC318; 2005(3)AWC2285
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the order passed by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. The brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioner is the tenant of the shop in question and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent-landlord, who has retired from Government service, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, herein-after referred to as the 'Act' for release of the shop in question on the ground that he is a retired employee and only source of income is of his pension, his son who is 25 years of age and is doing nothing, therefore, he filed the present application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act in order to facilitate the landlord to settle his son, who will open a general merchant shop in the shop in dispute. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »