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.
Radha Krishna and ors. Vs. Brij Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC660
Krishna Murari, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration, in this case, is whether, a suit where only a relief for permanent injunction has been claimed is liable to be abated by reason of Section 5 (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed Original Suit No. 342 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura, seeking a relief for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant/petitioner from interfering in his possession or from taking possession forcibly and raising any construction over the land in dispute. During the pendency of the proceedings an application No. 24-Ka was moved by defendant/petitioner No. 1 with a prayer that suit is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act as the village where the land in dispute is situate has been notified for consolidation operations.3. The trial court, vide order dated 21.4.1993, allowed th...
Ghurahu Vs. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small Cause Court and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC544
ORDERKrishna Murari, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1993 rejecting the application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. filed by the petitioner to produce certain additional evidence.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows :The petitioner and respondent No. 4 filed Original Suit No. 342 of 1985 for partition claiming two third share in the property in dispute. The trial court vide judgment dated 27.3.1993 dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed civil appeal before the respondent No. 1. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. dated 11.1.1999 was filed by the petitioner to bring on record some additional evidence. The lower appellate court vide order dated 13.12.1999 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.3. I have heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel for ...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC644
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. It arises out of suit filed by the respondent for possession over a piece of land ad measuring 2 feet wide lane shown in the plaint map and ejectment of the defendants and demolition of wall raised by them.2. The suit was instituted on the allegation that the plaintiff purchased a house detailed in the plaint map by letters A.B.E.F.G.C.D. situated in Mohalla Baqar Ganj (Banda). The said house originally belonged to Smt. Rajjo widow of Khyali and Bhauna son of Khyali. These two persons sold a house by means of sale deed dated 10th November, 1965, to one Booti Lal, who sold it to the plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 3rd April, 1968. The suit was filed with the allegations that the disputed piece of land belongs to the plaintiff. Easementary right over a said piece of land was also claimed by way of passage to take water from a well and also for the passage of sweepers.3. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellants by denying...
Smt. Munni Devi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC663
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.2. This is the landlords' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5th September, 1983, passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S.C.C. Revision No. 39 of 1981 under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act, whereby the revisional court has allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents-tenants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1981, passed by Munsif, Khurja in S.C.C. Suit No. 24 of 1973, whereby the suit filed by the landlord-petitioners was decreed.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the landlord filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the trial court. Before the trial court, the landlord filed an application that since the tenants have not complied with Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, their defence is liable to be stru...
Vijay Laxmi and anr. Vs. Munnu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC752
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the court below rejecting the application filed by the present appellant under Order XLI Rule 21, C.P.C.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Respondent Munna Lal instituted Suit No. 170 of 1991 for specific performance of a registered contract, dated 6th March, 1992 to sell the disputed house in his favour. The said agreement was executed by Smt. Krishna Devi, the mother of the present appellants, who has expired during pendency of the suit before the trial court. Out of total sale consideration of rupees one lac Rs. 25,000 was given on 2nd March, 1992 and Rs. 15,000 was given on 6th March, 1992. It was agreed that the agreement shall be executed by the vendor after her obtaining permission from the Urban Ceiling Authority, The vendor having failed to execute the sale deed, the suit for specific performance was filed.3. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 3rd of August, 2002. This decree as challe...
Cit Vs. Raja Sharda NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN574(All)
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 ?'Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:2. 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 respond...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(All)328; [2004]271ITR363(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following two questions of law for opinion of this Court under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to file an appeal under the WT Act, 1957, even though he had agreed to be assessed on the value of the unquoted equity shares worked out in accordance with Rule 1D of the WT Rules. 1957 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that arrears of dividends on cumulative preference shares and depreciation as allowed in the income-tax assessment was allowable as deduction in working out the break-up value of the shares ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The original assessment in this case was made on 30th Dec., 1971. The ITO had valued the unquoted shares in accordance with th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaiswal GraIn Stores
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)187; [2005]272ITR136(All)
1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the IT 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 taking the view that the deposits made by the partners on the first day of the accounting period could not be treated as the income of the assessee from unexplained sources ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :The assessee, which is an AOP, runs a store in the name of M/s Jaiswal Grain Stores at Jaunpur. During the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the ITO noticed that the three partners invested Rs. 5,000 each on 1st Aug., 1975, the first day of the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. The ITO added the entire amount of Rs. 15,000 as income from undisclosed sources after, finding that the statement of the partners mother-in-law, Smt. Dueja Devi, was contr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(All)531; [2005]272ITR367(All)
ORDERLack of relevant enquiry by assessing officerThe assessee filed his return claiming exemption in respect of agricultural income and income from poultry farming. The said exemption was allowed by the AO. The CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that in. making the assessment the AO did not make any enquiry or investigation as regards the nature, source or extent of income derived from agriculture and poultry-farming or investment from which these incomes arose. Further, the AO also did not take any steps to verify whether the incomes from these sources as claimed were fully exempt. In response to the notice issued under section 263, the assessee appeared before the CIT and stated that he has maintained proper accounts for these sources of income and will be in a position to produce evidence and proof to substantiate his claim. The CIT passed an order setting aside the assessment made by the AO with a direction to reframe the assessment after making f...
Marble Men and Handicrafts Inn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR81(All)
1. In Writ Petitions Nos. 875 and 961 of 2000 filed by M/s. Marble Men, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 1996-97 and for the assessment year 1998-99, respectively, have been challenged. In Writ Petition No. 962 of 2000 filed by M/s. Handicrafts Inn, notice under Section 148 of the Act issued for the assessment year 1998-99 has been challenged.2. Since in all these three petitions, a common question has been raised, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.3. The petitioners in all these petitions are dealers engaged in the business of handicrafts items and marble goods in the city of Agra. They cater to the needs of foreign tourists who visit the city. The goods sold against foreign exchange while taking the goods out of the country require customs clearance at the airport. The petitioners claim benefit of special deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »