Allahabad Court September 2004 Judgments
Pratap Singh Vs. Director of Education (Secondary) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC125
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri R. K. Pandey on behalf of the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri R. S. Mishra on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh on behalf of respondent No. 6. No body is present on behalf of respondent No. 5.2. Petitioner Pratap Singh, who claims to have been appointed as ad hoc Principal of the Sarvodaya Inter College Banboee, district Bulandshahr, has filed this writ petition against the recommendation of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selections Board dated 15.4.1997, as also against the order of the District Inspector of Schools passed in compliance of the order of Director of Education (Secondary) dated 22.1.1999 recommending the name of respondent No. 6 namely Baljeet Singh for the post of Principal of Sarvodaya Inter College.3. Various facts and grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the said selections of respondent No. 6.4. On behalf of the petitioner one of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]274ITR370(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, 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 to this court.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order allowing interest accrued on excess levy sugar price of Rs. 9,82,343 ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order deleting addition of Rs. 3.60 lakhs as estimated interest on debit balance of Dhampur Yeast Co. Ltd., which was, subsidiary of the assessee-company ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The respondent is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar by vacuum pan process. For the assessment year 1978-79, it had claimed a sum of Rs. 9,82,343 as inte...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Prasad Pandey (In Jail) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1974
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.2. The present petition was filed by Babu Prasad Pandey against the order of detention in jail under Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as N.S.A.). The brief facts as available from the ground of detention and the First Information Report of the case are that a report was brought to the Police Station by Hira Lal S/o Chunni Lal, a washer-man r/o Tendura, P.S. Bisanda, District Banda that the petitioner's wife had given birth to a child sometime early in the month of December. The mother of the informant Rookmani was asked by the petitioner to wash the clothes of his wife and the new born. She declined to do so on the ground that she had stopped doing the work of a washer woman for the last two years. This was not appreciated by the petitioner and he had taken the insult to her defiance to his heart. On the date of occurrence i.e. 27-1-2004 at about 4.00 p.m. the mother of the informant, Rookma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deokinandan Om Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]276ITR497(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court :'Whether in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 the Tribunal has been in error in holding that the Income-tax Officer can derive mandate from Section 186(1) of the Income-tax Act only in respect of the orders passed under Section 185(1)(a) of the Act and once the provisions of Section 185(1)(b) are invoked Section 186(1) of the Act simply cannot be brought to play any role ?'2. Briefly stated the facts in the present case are as follows :3. The respondent is a firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer rejected the application filed by the respondent for grant of registration on the ground that it had not filed information about formation of partnership to its constituent and further that the information was given to the State Bank of India, as late as on Sept...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Ice Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)263; [2005]276ITR596(All)
R.K. Agrawal J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the opinion to this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the terms and conditions of the original partnership deed and also in view of the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Partnership Act was it not open to partners to change its course, when they realized that the interest on the debit balance of one of the partners was being charged erroneously, and the findings recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Tribunal that the agreement dated February 20, 1975, was afterthought and not relevant are based on relevant consideration and liable to be sustained?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :The present reference relates to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The applic...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Ma Shree Kishoriji Bishwa Hitakari Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN668(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Allahabad has referred the following two questions of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this court:-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the property under the Trust deed dated 18-8-1961 was held by the assessee trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature within the meaning of section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the wealth-tax authorities were not justified in not granting exemption to the assessee trust under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 on the strength of proviso to section 21A of the said Act for the assessment year under consideration i.e. assessment year 1968-69 when in fact section 21A was applicable for assessment year 1973-74 onwards ?'.2. Briefly stating the facts gi...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC1; 2005ACJ2036
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard Mr. Ram Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent and Mr. P.K. Bisariya from the side of the opposite party No. 4 and also perused the materials on record.2. This revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, has been brought against the judgment and order dated 12.5.2003 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge Court No. 5, Fatehpur, in M.A.C. No. 144 of 2002, whereby granting compensation in the tune of Rs. 1,15,648 together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the revisionist'). Further, certain directions were also given against the claimant for lodging report against the claimant for fabricating false bills so as to multiply the claim. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Tribunal has not properly evaluated the evidence on record. There was ample evidence that th...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Ice Factory Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN314(All)
R.K. Agrawal, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this court: 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the terms and conditions of the original partnership deed and also in view of the provisions of section 13(c) of the Partnership Act was it not open to partners to change its course, when they realized that the interest on the debit balance of one of the partners was being charged erroneously, and the findings recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Tribunal that the agreement dated 20-2-1985 was afterthought and not relevant are based on relevant consideration and liable to be sustained?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:The present reference relates to assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, The applicant is the firm consisti...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Agra Construction Corpn.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN31(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under section 80I was to be allowed to the assessee by holding that the assessee was manufacturing or producing articles or things?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that investment allowance under section 32A was to be allowed on the machinery used in the business of the assessee?'Heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue.2. The present reference relates to assessment year 1982-83. The respondent-assessee is carrying on contract business for construction of tubular trusses, beams, girders and other structural, rolling shutters and other civil works. The activities undertaken ...
Tag this Judgment!Km. Kavita Yadav Vs. Director General, Medical Education and Training ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC85; (2005)1UPLBEC745
Arun Tandon, J.1. On 14.9.2004 this Court granted time upto 23.9.2004 to the counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file counter-affidavit/seek instructions. On 23.9.2004, again the matter was adjourned to 28.9.2004. On 28.9.2004, the matter was directed to be taken up today.2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Mahendra Pratap on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, Sri Mahendra Pratap has received instructions and on the basis of the instructions so received he has made his submissions for justifying the action of the respondents.3. This Court is aware that in normal circumstances no interim orders granting provisional admission are to be passed in view of the law laid down by the1 High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the facts of the present case if interim orders are not passed the present writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »