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.
Cit Vs. Rakesh Cold Storage
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN571(All)
ORDERThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad 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 the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the A.A.C.s order directing the Income Tax Officer to work out depreciation for the assessment year 1978-79 by adopting the W.D.V. as per assessment order for the assessment year 1977-78 dated 3-6-1978 ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The present matter relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The respondent assessee is a registered firm and ran a cold storage, called M/s. Rakesh Cold Storage. It maintained its account on mercantile basis. It purchased a generator for Rs. 2,18,035.00 on 17-11-1974, falling in the assessment year 1976-77. The Income Tax Officer had allowed depreciation of Rs. 21,803.00 @ 10 percent oil the total co...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(All)181; [2005]272ITR592(All)
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that there was no deemed gift of the share, of the goodwill in favour of the new partners ?' 2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1976-77.3. M/s Chowdhary Sweet House was a firm consisting of the following four partners :Name of the partner Extent of share1. Shri Shyam Lal 28%2. Shri Ram Chand (Ram Lal) 28%3. Shri Nand Lal 24%4. Shri Ashok Kumar 20%This firm was constituted under the partnership deed dt. 13th April, 1970. All the partners as per Clause 6 of the above deed were working partners and were also entitled to salary. Clause 10 of the above deed is relevant for our purpose. It reads as under:'10. That, business assets, business premises and its goodwill, shall remain vested in partners Shr...
i.F.C.i. Limited and ors. Vs. Sidco Leathers Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ... Overruled
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: [2006]131CompCas429(All); (2006)5CompLJ492(All); (2004)3UPLBEC2512
M. Katju, J.1. We have heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary assisted by Sri Om Prakash for the appellants and Sri K.L. Grover assisted by Sri Vikram Nath for the respondents.2. This company appeal arises out of an order dated 24.5.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the objections of the appellants, in this appeal and allowing the application of Punjab National Bank for distribution of the sale proceeds of SIDCO Leather Limited (in liquidation) of prorata basis.3. The brief facts arises out in this appeal are that the SIDCO Leather Limited (in Liquidation) [in short 'the Company (In Liquidation),] was wound up by an order of this Court dated 16.12.1993. The Official Liquidator was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. By the orders of the Court the assets of the Company were sold by the Official Liquidator and the sale was confirmed on 24.2.1999. The Official Liquidator in pursuance of the order dated 9.4.2001, issued an advertisement inviting claims for settlement under Rul...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Labour Court and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1012]; (2004)3UPLBEC2705
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner-eiriployer, aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 24th September, 1984'in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1975, has approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication :'KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE KARMCHARI SHRI MUJIB AHMAD (PUTRA SHRI KHAN MOHAMMAD) KO SEASON 1973- 74 KE ARAMBH HONE Kl TITHI 7-12-73 KO KARYA PAR NA LIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANlK HAL YADI NAHIN TO SAMBANDHIT KARMCHARI KYA LABH/ KSHATIPURTI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT.'3. The Labour Court, on receipt of the aforesaid reference, issued notices to the workman concerned as well as the employer. The parties exchanged pleadings and adduced evidence. In short the workman has set up his case that he has been employed by the employer in crushing season. 1971-72 and has worked the whole season of 1971-72 as sheet-writing clerk which is the jo...
Badri Prasad (D.) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Satya Dev
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)AWC3292
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal whereby the appellant has challenged the order passed by the lower appellate court the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant permanently, from interfering with the management of the property of a temple in question as 'sarvarakar'. The defendant contested the suit and denied the plaintiffs case that the plaintiff Is sole 'sarvarakar' of the temple. The trial court on the pleadings of the parties have framed as many as six issues, which are as under :(1) Whether plaintiff alone is 'sarvarakar' of the temple in dispute and has right over the offerings made therein?(2) Whether the suit is barred by Section 11 of the C.P.C.?(3) Whether the suit is barred by estoppel?(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder?(5) Whether the suit is not in time?(6) To what relief, if any, Is the plaintiff entitled?2. After the parties adduced the evidence the trial court reco...
Satyunjai Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: (2004)3UPLBEC2887
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Ali Hasan Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tiwari on behalf of U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1. Nobody is present on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. It is, however, not necessary to issue notice or to call for counter affidavit from the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.2. The petitioner who is a student of B. Tech 3rd year in Bharat Institute of Technology, Bye-pass Road, Meerut, which is an affiliated College of U.P. Technical University, Lucknow, could not undertake the examination of 6th semester of 3rd year of B. Tech course which commenced from 15.5.2004 as he had failed to achieve the required attendance. The petitioner challenged the decision of respondent No. 2 refusing permission to appear in the said examination on the ground of shortage of attendance, by means of Writ Petition No. 19478 of 2004 which was dismissed by this Court on 19.5.2004. Subsequently vide letter dated 7.5.2004, issue...
Smt. Shakooran Begum and ors. Vs. Mohd. Waris and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC648
Prakash Krishna, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the order allowing the review application passed by the court below.2. The plaintiff/appellant filed Suit No. 335 of 1980 against the present respondents for possession over a piece of house described by letters A.B.C.D. in the plaint map. The suit for ejectment and recovery of damages was filed on the allegation that originally one Abdul Qayum was owner in possession of the disputed property, who sold it by a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1933 in favour of Smt. Usmani Begum. Smt. Usmani Begum by means of registered sale deed dated 26th November, 1956, sold the property in question to the plaintiffs. In the month of September, 1980, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got a sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 in respect of the disputed property, for a sum of Rs. 6,000. The defendant No. 3 was never the owner or tenant of the disputed property and as such he could not execute the sale deed in favour of de...
Vishal Panda and anr. Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1012
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition which has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu Vishal alias Panda has impugned the order dated 21-12-2003 passed by Mr. S. N. Pandey, District Magistrate, Mainpuri (respondent No. 1), detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 21-12-2003 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 21-12-2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the first respondent to clamp the impugned detention order against him are contained in grounds of detention. Since in our view a reference to them is not necessary for the adjudication of the pleadings contained in paragrahs 25, 26 and 27 of the writ petition and ground (i) of paragraph 30 thereof, on which alone this writ petition deserves to succeed...
Priyambada Tripathi Vs. Onkar Nath Khandelwal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1014
B. S. Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner, facing the failure of her family life, feeling cheated and disgusted by her husband who solemnized the alleged second marriage, lodged the criminal complaint against her husband Sri Adya Shanker Tripathi and his alleged second wife Smt. Asha Tripathi, who had left this country for residing in United States of America. At the very initial stage in 1989-90, the Trial Court granted exemption of personal appearance allowing their applications under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Cr. P. C.). They had been represented throughout by their counsel. In 1997, the Court issued warrants of arrest against the said accused persons for securing their appearance. The said order was challenged by the said accused before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court but they could not succeed in getting any relief. This petition for initiating the criminal contempt proceedings against six officers of the Registry including...
Ashok Kumar Goyal Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR264(All)
1. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the order dated March 21, 1997 passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :3. The petitioner is an individual. The petitioner, according to him is engaged in the business of job work of manufacture of silver chains upon orders received from customers. He had 536 kilograms (net) of silver which he had sold during the financial year 1992-93 for a total sum of Rs. 41,78,937. According to the petitioner, he had acquired the silver over a period of years at a total cost of Rs. 30,43,711 which resulted in net profit of Rs. 11,35,226. The income-tax authorities took certain proceedings, whereupon...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »