Allahabad Court January 2005 Judgments
Rama Kant Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC929
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri P.K. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Faujdar Rai appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 6 to 11.2. Shorn of unnecessarily details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that suit filed by the contesting respondents under Section 229B read with Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed by the trial court on 7.12.1977, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court vide judgment dated 22.11.1979, allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court. The findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 were set aside. The appellate court reframed the said two issues and directed the trial court to hear and decide the case afresh after recording the findings on the reframed Issue Nos. 1 and 2. The finding of the trial court on issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were confirmed.3. After remand, the trial court instead of deciding the two issues reframed by the appellate court framed as many ...
Tag this Judgment!Bashir Ahmad Khan (D.) Through L.Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)AWC924
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Singh for the respondents'.2. The facts giving rise to the dispute are as under.3. During the chak allotment proceedings respondent No. 4, Amirjahan Bibi filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act against the proposed allotment which was rejected by the consolidation officer vide order dated 21.4.1975. After a lapse of about 5 years she filed time barred appeal along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 12.3.1982, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time barred. Feeling aggrieved she filed a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on merits vide order dated 21.7.1982. The respondent No. 5, Naushad filed an application to recall the said order. One Jagdish, respondent No. 8, who is said to be not a party in the revision, also filed similar ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikam Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1310
Krishna Murari, J.1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14.1.1988 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 3.10.1986.2. The dispute in the present case relates to inheritance after the death of one Bankey Singh son of Pyare Singh. Genealogy of the members of the family amongst whom the present dispute arises is as under :Mohan Singh|------------------------------------------------------ | | |Ishwari Singh Dina Nath Gokul Singh| | X| Dwarika Singh| (Died on 29.11.1982)| |----------------------------------------------| | |Pyare Singh Bulaki Singh Sheolal Singh| | = Smt. Sundar (widow remarried)| | to Pyare Singh and (died in 1980)Bankey Singh Onkar Singh (died on 21.11.1982) |Bhikham Singh(Petitioner) 3. On death of Bankey Singh the name of the petitioner came to be recorded under Section 175 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1982. Thereafter, respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Himalaya Cold Storage and Iron Indu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)129
R.K. Agrawal, J.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 opinion to this Court:-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that allowability of investment allowance to Cold Storage is a disputable issue when the issue stands already settled following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (1981) 47 STC 124 which was followed by Hon'ble High Courts in cases of C.I.T. the Revenue Delhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. : [1985]156ITR97(Delhi) and C.I.T. v. Mittal Ice & Cold Storage 159 ITR 462. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (1981) 47 STC 124 on interpretation of definition of 'manufacturing processing' amount to a declaration of law as contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India, whether on ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC2140
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The petitioner is owner of the property bearing Municipal No. 1186A Sasani Ward, Circular Road Bagla Marg, Hathras. The said property is subject to payment of house tax and water tax as levied by Nagar Palika Parishad, Hathras, respondent No. 1. Its earlier annual valuation was Rs. 960 for the purposes of house tax and water tax. These taxes were payable at the rate of 10% of the annual value. The petitioner admittedly made certain additions and alterations in the aforesaid property. There is no averments in the writ petition about the nature of the additions and alterations made in the said property, nor the petitioner has disclosed the date or dates of such additions and alterations. The Nagar Palika Parishad on coming to know of the additions and alterations gave notice under Section 147 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of revising the annual valuation of the property and it. invited objections from the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alankar Bottling Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)298
1. The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questionslaw under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the ITO was justified in directing in the original order that the loss on account of depreciation be carried forward or set off in the subsequent years ?2. Whether, on the face of specific provisions of law contained in Section 32(2) and Section 75 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) ?3. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the issue, whether unabsorbed depreciation has to be allowed in the case of the firm or of the partners, is a debatable issue which cannot be made subject-matter of rectification under Section 154 ?'2. The present reference relates to the asst. yr. 1980-81.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is engaged in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Himalaya Cold Storage and Iron Industries
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN90(All)
ORDERR.K. Agrawal, J. 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 opinion to this Court:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that allowability of investment allowance to Cold Storage is a disputable issue when the issue stands already settled following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1981) 47 STC 124 which was followed by Hon'ble High Courts in cases of CIT Revenue v. Delhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. : [1985]156ITR97(Delhi) and CIT v. Mittal Ice & Cold Storage : [1986]159ITR18(MP) 2. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. (1981) 47 STC 124 on interpretation of definition of 'manufacturing processing' amount to a declaration of law as contemplated by article 141 of the Constitution of India, whet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Faizan and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: [2008]296ITR161(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.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 learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee was a recognized export house and a small scale exporter who was manufacturing and producing articles and hence was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the case of the assessee fell under the definition of small scale industrial unit?2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The reference relates to the assessment year 1978-79 with the previous year having ended on March 31,1978. The assessee is a resident registered firm and claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act on th...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Lal Dewan and Sons. Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN625(All)
ORDERBy the CourtThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi has referred 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:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 80C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Life Insurance premium paid and national saving certificates purchased out of moneys borrowed?'The reference relates to the assessment year 1985-86 made at the instance of Jagdish Chand and Sons and Kasturi Lal Dewan and Sons. The applicants are HUF and they had claimed deduction under section 80C of the Act after making investment taken out of loan. It may be mentioned here that the investment was much below the income declared by them.2. Heard Sri Amitabh Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri P.K Jain learned counsel for the assessee and Sri A.N. Mahajan standing counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Cit, Meerut Vs. Sewa Ram and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: [2006]154TAXMAN280(All)
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question to law under section 256(l) 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 Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the assessing officer to decide the assessee's plea of partial partition on merit afresh by ignoring the provisions of section 171(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'The reference relates to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under:The respondent-assessee is HUF According to the respondents partial partition had taken place in the HUF on 1- 1 - 1980. The Income Tax Officer invoking the provisions of section 171(9) of the Act, for both the assessment years, did not accept the plea of partial partition as in view of the said provision partial partition effected after 31-12-1978 is not to be re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »