Allahabad Court August 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Angoori Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(All)381; [2005]273ITR500(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, each of the assessees for each of the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 was entitled to the deduction permissible under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the immovable property belonging to the firm of M/s. Laxmi Talkies, Mathura, where the assessees were partners ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reversionary value of the land of the cinema building could be added to the market value worked out on yield basis ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The respondent-assessees are partners in the firm styled as M/s. Laxmi Talkies, Mathura. The Wealth-tax Officer treated the interest of the asses-see in the aforesaid ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ixth A.D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC546
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 1.5.2004 under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby the appellate authority modified the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a tenant of the accommodation in dispute which is under his tenancy and the contesting respondent-landlady, Omvati filed an application in December, 1981, purported to be an application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for enhancement of the rent. This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the rent was enhanced from Rs. 340 to 600 with effect from the date of application, i.e., December, 1981. Aggrieved thereby the landlady as well as petitioner-tenant, both, preferred appeals before the appellate authority. The appeal...
Hari Ram Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC758
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the asami leases in favour of the petitioners have been cancelled and the names were also expunged from revenue records. All the cases raise similar question, hence are being decided by this common judgment.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are being finally decided.3. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, Sri S.B. Singh, Sri. S.K. Shukla, Sri P.K. Tyagi. Smt. Archana Tyagi for the petitioners and Sri N.P. Pandey learned standing counsel appearing for the State.4. For deciding all these writ petitions, it is sufficient to note facts of Writ Petition No. 15880 of 2004 and Writ Petition No. 18126 of 2004.5. Writ Petition No. 15880 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the orders dated 28th August, 1998 and 29th September, 1998. Order dated. 28th August, 1998 is a letter ...
Committee of Management, Shaoul Uloom Educational Society and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC580
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Faheem Ahmad advocate, for the petitioners, Sri A.P. Sahi advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3, Sri K. N. Rai advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. At the very outset it has been stated by Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate, appearing for the petitioners, that the order of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, respondent No. 1, dated 30.1.2004, contained in Annexure-9, in so far as it holds that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, is correct and is not being assailed before this Court. The said order has only been brought on record in order to explain the delay in filing the present writ petition against the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 22.12.2003. It has been stated that the petitioner was pursuing the remedy before a wrong Court, i.e., by way of appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, hence ...
Mohd. Haron and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR490(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the provisions of Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessee's income in the sale effected by it during the relevant period ?2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not considering that the burden lies on the Department to prove that the amount belonged to the assessee it was more so when the four partners had admitted that the amount belonged to them and was consequently justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 52,000 from out of Rs. 92,000 found in the assessee's premises was owned by the assessee ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :3. The applicant is a re...
Parbhash Chandra JaIn (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. A.D.J. (Special Judge, Ess ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC781
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State as well as Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.2. The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Etawah, dated 11th March, 1987, whereby the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2nd January, 1987, has been refused to be interfered with on the ground that the deemed vacancy has already been notified, therefore, the order cannot be recalled in exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, approached the revisional court, who maintained the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Admittedly, no revision lies and remedy of pursuing the revision was misconce...
indra Pal Mishra Alias Raju Son of Bhagwan DIn Vs. Special Judge (E.C. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2565
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 5.3.1984 under Section 29 read with Section 30 of the Act stating that he holds 32.84 Acre of irrigated land and as such 3.79 acres of irrigated land is surplus with him. The petitioner filed objection to the said notice. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31.1.1985 declared 3.64 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus in the hands of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly a lowed by the appellate authority and instead 3.64 acres an area of 2.14 acres in terms of irrigated land was declared surplus.4. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice under Section 29 of the Act can on...
Cwt Vs. Smt. Angoori Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN643(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, each of the assessees for each of the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 was entitled to the deduction permissible under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, in respect of the immovable property belonging to the firm of M/s. Laxmi Talkies, Mathura, where the assessees were partners ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reversionary value of the land of the cinema building could be added to the market value worked out on yield basis ?'The present reference relates to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The respondent- assessees are partners in the firm styled as M/s. Laxmi Talkies, Mathura. The Wealth Tax Officer treated the interest of the assessee in the aforesaid firm w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Appollo Textiles Agency
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: [2006]283ITR591(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee's claim for Rs. 15,498 representing sales tax liability and penal interest on it for earlier years was an allowable deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961, specially when the said amount was offered for taxation in the assessment year 1979-80 on refund ?2. The assessee opposite party deals in staple and yarn. For the assessment year 1978-79, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee firm had debited a sum of Rs. 15,498 on account of sales tax. He was of the opinion that the aforesaid amount relates to payment on account of penalty and interest imposed by the sales tax authorities for earlier years and, therefore, disallowed the same. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ...
Chairman, Prathama Bank and ors. Vs. Jaspal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR164]
M. Katju, A.C.J. and Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This special appeal has been filed against the interim order of the learned Single Judge, dated 4 August, 2001, slaying the transfer order.2. Transfer is an exigency of service and hence this Court should not ordinarily interfere vide Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2005 (1) LLN 144. The aforesaid decision has considered the relevant case law on the point.3. It has also been held in Special Appeal No. 911 of 2001, Sandeep Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 5 August, 2001; Special Appeal No. 860 of 2004; Shesh Nath Singh v. Mukesh Singh, decided on 26 July, 2004 and Union of India v. Raghubir Prasad, decided on 2 July, 2004 that a special appeal is maintainable against an interim order staying a transfer order.4. The learned Single Judge has stated that there have been frequent transfers of the writ petitioner. In our opinion there is no bar to frequent transfers. Moreover, the mere fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »