Allahabad Court June 2004 Judgments
The Acit, Range-ii Vs. Baldev Plaza
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)93ITD579(All.)
1. All the above departmental appeals for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1996-97 are directed against the common order CIT(A)-III, Lucknow dated 31.10.2002. I.T.A.No. 52(Alld.)/2002 by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Lucknow dated 19.11.2001 for assessment year 1998-99. All the Cross Objections are filed by the assessee mainly in support of the impugned orders. However, in assessment year 1997-98, Cross Objection is filed by the assessee without there being any departmental appeal, which we shall take up separately about its maintainability.2. Since common questions are involved in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals were heard together alongwith Cross Objections.However, for the sake of convenience, we take up the departmental appeal in I.T.A.No. 68(Alld.)/2003 and C.O.No. 39(Alld.)/2004 for the assessment year 1990-91 first for the purpose of disposal.I.T.A.NO. 68(ALLD.)/2003 (REVENUE'S APPEAL) AND C.O.NO.39(ALLD.)/2004-A.Y.1990-91.3. Brief facts as ...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Mohd. Farooq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(All)615
ORDERBha Vnesh Saim, J.M.This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-U, Lucknow, dated 31-1-2002, for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,80,000.3. The brief facts, as taken from the record, are that on 21-4-1994, SHO, GRP, Police Station Charbagh, Lucknow, seized cash of Rs. 1,80,000 from the possession of Shri Nadimul Haque, son of Shri Hamisul Haque, resident of Mirzapur, Gorakhpur, who is stated to be employee of the assessee. Subsequently, cash was seized and requisitioned under section 132A of the Income Tax Act by DIP, Investigation, Kanpur. Shri Nadimul Haque stated before the police as well as Income Tax Authorities that in fact the money did not belong to him but to the assessee and he was carrying the cash to Nasik by train. In the proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act, assessee Shri Mohd. Farooq, proprietor of M/s Mohd. Nasim Mohd. Amin Fruit Merchant and Commission Agen...
Tag this Judgment!Vijendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3104
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to send the electricity bill to the petitioner as per the meter reading and permit the petitioner to deposit the same in accordance with law.2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is Pharmacist in the Hospital ; and that the petitioner had applied for Electricity Connection in the year 1982 for domestic purpose, and that the petitioner was having Electricity Connection No. 019830, Book No. 0221 : and that the petitioner was regularly paying the bill ; and that the bill for the period upto 18.8.2002, as per the meter reading was Rs. 189, and the petitioner made payment of Rs. 189 in the Month of October, 2002, and that the bill for the period upto 17th October, 2002 was Rs. 222, and the petitioner also deposited the same, and that the respondents sent ar...
Tag this Judgment!Charan Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All373; 2004(4)AWC3186
ORDERSunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard S/Sri R. K. Tripathi, S.P.S. Rathore B. N. Pandey for petitioners and learned standing counsel. This matter has been placed before me in vacations under the Rules of the Court, after nomination by senior Vacation Judge dated 24r6-2004.2. In Writ Petition No. 23232 of 2004, the petitioners 1 & 4 have passed 'Vaidya Visharad' Examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, in the year 1977, and have thereafter worked as Pharmacists at Indian Ordinance Factories at Muradnagar, after getting themselves registered with the State Council Ayurvedic Evam Unani Medicine Bihar Patna, and Haryana and Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsa Parishad Board, Shimla respectively. The petitioner No. 2 has passed Vaidya Visharad Examination in the year 1996 and is enrolled with Rajkiya Ayurvedic & Chikitsa Parishad, Bihar, on 5-4-1996, and that the petitioner No. 3 has passed H.M.B.S. Examination (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery) and is registered with Sathi Homeo...
Tag this Judgment!Guddi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3099; (2004)3UPLBEC2171
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition was heard by me on 21st June, 2004 and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.2. The petitioner, who is elected Upadhyaksha (Vice-President) of Zila Panchayat, Firbzabad and was officiating as Adhyaksha under the provision of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Adhiniyam'), because the then Adhyaksha ceased to be the member of the Zila Panchayat under Section 27-A of the Adhiniyam on being elected as member of the legislative Assembly Uttar Pradesh from Shikohabad constituency, Firozabad.3. From the narration of the facts in the writ petition which are admitted, it appears that out of twenty-four members of the Zila Panchayat, seventeen members signed requisition and presented the same as provided under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam before the District M...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sukha Raj Singh Rathore Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4553
ORDERAmar Saran, J. 1. This Division Bench writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and for staying the petitioner's arrest has come up before me sitting singly as vacation judge under Chapter V, Rule 10(1) of the High Court Rules.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned AGA.3. Issue notice to respondent No. 5.4. The facts of the present case are that when her husband Kallu was away in village Garhna, in Panna, M.P. to do the work of a labourer, Smt. Sunita, a Harijan woman, and mother of four little children appears to have been induced by the Basic Health Worker, Suman Raj co-accused, apparently on a promised incentive of Rs. 150, to get herself sterilized at the health camp at the State Allopathic Dispensary, Atarra, Banda. Smt. Sunita was operated on 12-3-2004 by the petitioner, who was the in-charge, CHC, Atarra. Only the consent of Smt. Sunita appears to have been taken for this operation, as her husband was absent. Also no laboratory tests appear to have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Vijai Bahadur Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2330
ORDERS.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur rejecting transfer application of petitioner as not maintainable.2. The facts giving rise to present writ petition are that Revision No. 1367 of 2003, Vijay Bahadur v. Indu Devi, Gram Mohalla Pargana Khapraha, Tahsil Sadar, District Jaunpur is pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. A transfer application of petitioner to withdraw the revision from Deputy Director of Consolidation for disposal by himself or by any other Deputy Director of Consolidation was rejected by impugned order as not maintainable.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.4. Relevant portion of amended Rule 65 (1A) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules is quoted below :'The District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a district where Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation is posted may call for record of any re...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bhara ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2323; (2004)2UPLBEC1907
M. Katju and S.N. Srivastava, JJ.1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.2. It appears that an examination was held for 190 posts of office assistants grade III in the service of the U. P. Power Corporation Ltd. Some serious complaints were received regarding this selection held by the Electricity Service Commission, and particularly against its ex-President Sri N. R. Sonkar, against whom an enquiry has been ordered for playing fraud. These complaints inter alia alleged that persons who have been selected did not have the minimum requirement of work knowledge. There were irregularities in the examination for the Computer Operators and Typists. At Varanasi the General Manager (Distribution), U. P. Power Corporation Ltd., Varanasi asked the typists to type but they could not type and the Computer operators could not operate the Computers. It is alleged that the persons who were selected were not eligible...
Tag this Judgment!Coolade Beverages Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(172)ELT451(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This is a reference under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act by which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :-(I) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in maintaining the order of imposition of penalties though reduced in view of its own observation and finding that duty liability does not arise hence the demand of duty is not correct and not sustainable in law?(II) Whether the order of imposition of penalties can be sustained when the penalties were proposed to be imposed merely on the allegation that glass bottles were sold during the period in question on which Modvat Credits were already availed of and the said allegation has been set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal?(III) Whether the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), for short impose penalty on an assessee after holding that the charge of evasion of duty, against the assessee had not been proved and the liability for duty itself do not arise?(IV) Whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Officer and anr. Vs. Kishan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)AWC2329; [2004(102)FLR792]
ORDERM. Katju, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.7.1999 by which the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition against the order of compulsory retirement.2. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. We find no infirmity in the Judgment of the learned single Judge.4. It appears that the only material against the petitioner was an adverse entry dated 30.6.1989 but that was not communicated to the writ petitioner.5. Two Division Bench decisions of this Court, being State of U. P. v. M.C. Maheshwari, 1995 (71) FLR 84 and Sri Dilawar Singh Paul v. State of U. P., 1996 AWC (Suppl) 733 ; 1997 (1) ESC 324 (All) have distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020, and have held that that decision will not apply in Uttar Pradesh because in Uttar Pradesh the law of compulsory retirement is different from that in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›