Allahabad Court July 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.
Radhey Shyam and ors. Vs. Raj Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3656
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by Civil Judge (JD) by which the court below decided issue No. 8 leaning against the petitioner holding therein that the suit instituted in the civil court was not barred by operation of the provisions contained in Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Appeal preferred against the said order also met the fate of rejection vide order dated 11.5.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Bijnor presiding over Court No. 2.2. In the instant case, dispute has its genesis in the property belonging to Nand Kishore comprising in Khata No. 38 Khasra No. 82 admeasuring 9-9-6. Raj Kishore respondent being co-sharer and being elder brother, his name came to be mutated in the revenue records. It is alleged that Nand Kishore deceased had executed a Will in favour of late Smt. Sona Devi bequeathing the property in question to her. Subsequently, Smt. Sona Devi also died and in pursuance of ...
Har Saran Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3764
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petition on hand has been instituted assailing the judgment of Board of Revenue dated 21st October, 1994 by which second appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court decreeing the suit for declaration under Section 229B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by Vendees of Ram Ghulam was affirmed.2. In the instant case, causative factor of dispute is the land in dispute owned by Ram Ghulam who was issueless. He was issueless and transferred his rights through sale deed to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 sons of his own brother namely Sharda and annoyed by this act of Har Saran, the petitioner who also happens to be his real brother, kicked up dispute about validity of sale deed and subsequently, his rights as bhumidhars to execute the sale deed.3. The facts beyond the pale of dispute are that Ram Ghulam was the sirdar of the disputed plot i.e., plot No. 113 admeasuring 5-5-0. He deposited twenty times of land revenue for grant of bhumidhari rig...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(All)341; [2005]274ITR119(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing various expenses against the income from other sources?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The references arise under the Act for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 for which the relevant previous year ended on 30th June, 1977, and 30th June, 1978, respectively. The assessee was registered on 31st March, 1975 as a co-operative society with Registrar of Sugarcane Co-operative Societies, UP, Lucknow. Its object was primarily to set up a sugar mill. For this purpose, it collected funds from its members and from the Government as subsidy. The Tribunal was told that till the end of the previous years relevant to the assessment years under reference, the sugar mill h...
Balwant Rai and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(All)337; [2005]274ITR269(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in invoking at the Tribunal's stage the provisions of the Expln. 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, as applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 and in thereby upholding the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 13,000 on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) ?'2. For the year 1975-76, the assessee filed its return of income on 10th Feb., 1978, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,76,130. The ITO, however, framed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 2,24,130 under Section 143(3) of the Act, on 31st March, 1978. One of the components of the, total income determined by the ITO was Rs. 13,000 which was included in the total income of the assessee in the following manner:'On scrutiny of cash book, the following deposits were f...
Ram Prakash Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)272
1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), for opinion to this Court :1. 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled for investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled for the claim under Section 80J and under Section 80HH of the IT Act, 1961 ?'3. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cold storage is only engaged in processing of goods and not engaged in manufacturing or producing any goods ?'2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :'The assessment year involved is 1978-79, the accounting period ended on 31st March, 1978. The status of the assessee is HUF (sma...
Hameed and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004All405; 2005(1)AWC738
Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The plaintiff, Kanhaiya filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 23-12-1981 executed by Sita Ram in favour of the defendants. The suit was filed by Kanhaiya as a minor through his mother and legal guardian Smt. Kailashi Devi claiming himself to be the son of Sita Ram. The plaintiff alleged that Sita Ram was an illiterate and a simpleton person and was also hard of hearing. He was called to Darjeeling by his nephew Janeshwar and others, who played a fraud upon Sita Ram and got a gift deed executed in their favour, whereby Sita Ram gifted his entire properties in favour of Janeshwar and others. When Sita Ram came to know about the execution of this gift deed, he filed a suit against his nephew being suits No. 234 of 1977 and 235 of 1977 and ultimately on 23-1-1979, a compromise took place wherein Sita Ram got back 60% of his property along with a sum of Rs. 28,000/-. The plaintiff alleged to the defendants were residents of the same village and that t...
Committee of Management, Kisan Junior High School, Through Its Manager ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3235; (2004)3UPLBEC2890
Arun Tandon, J.1. The alleged Committee of Management of Kisan Junior High School, Karmauta (Manjharia), district Kushinagar through its Manager Srimati Chandrawati Devi has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kushinagar recognizing the election set up by respondent No. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the dispute with regard to the election of the Committee of the Management was referred under the orders of this Court dated 19.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 1147 of 2000 and 41344 of 2000 for adjudication before the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kushinagar. It is not disputed that on 29.6.2004 the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued notice to the parties concerned to the petitioner as well as to respondent No. 4 which was dispatched from his office on 30.6.2004 wherein a week's time was granted to file reply to the notice along with documentary evidence proposed to be relied upon. On the date...
Om Giri Chela Late Sri Arjun Giri Vs. Mandir Shiv Jee Maharaj Birajman ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3689
ORDERS.N. Srivastava, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.3.2004 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Pilibhit, rejecting application Nos. Kha-54/2 and 3 accepting the objection Ga-63 of other side.2. Brief facts are that Om Giri filed an application for substitution claiming himself to be the legal representative of Arjun Singh alias Arjun Giri. Trial court before whom suit is pending rejected the application for substitution in place of Arjun Giri plaintiff. This order is impugned in the present writ petition.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.4. Learned counsel for petitioner urged that the order passed by Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, rejecting substitution application suffers from manifest error of law and findings are perverse. He further urged that petitioner is the heir and legal representative of Arjun Giri and is claiming himself to be legal representative for substitution in place of Arjun Giri and substituti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raja Sharda NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR374(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law competent to reduce the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) to a figure lower than the sum equal to two per cent, of the tax for every month during which the default continued but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent of the tax ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was competent to reduce the quantum of penalty below the minimum prescribed in Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:3. The respondent-assessee is an individual and the matter pertains to the assessment year 1948-49, accounting year ending in September, 1947. By a notice under Section 148 of the Act, the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(All)105
1. The Tribunal 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, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the partial partition effected on 1st Dec, 1971 was valid Under Section 171 of the IT Act ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee had filed an application Under Section 171 of the Act, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1973-74, claiming partial partition, effective 1st Dec, 1971, of the HUF, Mahendra Kumar, hitherto assessed as HUF in respect of the share capital invested and the right to share the profit and loss in the partnership firm Goverdhan Dass Mahendra Kumar, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. The remaining assets of HUF were to remain joint. The family of Mahendra Kumar HUF consisted of the following : Mahendra Kumar, Karta|----------------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »