Allahabad Court January 2005 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.
Krishna Mohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1542
1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.5.1997 of a learned Judge of this Court by which the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant had been made without advertising the post.2. The petitioner-appellant claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the L.T. grade in the year 1991. The petition had been filed for payment of salary. It is an admitted fact that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant had been made by the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools did not grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner-appellant.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (2) ESC 345 (All), does not apply with retrospective effect and as the appointments were being made without advertising the vacancy, prior to the said judgment the case of the petitioner-appellant ought to have been considere...
Cit Vs. K.N. Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN13(All)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New 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 opinion to this Court:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the payments made under sections 210 and 140A were to be treated as payments in pursuance of order of assessment and accordingly qualified for allowability of interest under section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1972-73.3. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing counsel for the revenue and Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee.4. It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that the question raised herein has been answered in favour of the assessee by this court in W.T.R. 237 of 19875. As the provisions in the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act are similar, respectfull...
Cit Vs. Agra Beverages Corpn. (P) Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN12(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 opinion to this Court, relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83:'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the bottles and crates in assessee's case did riot constitute its stock-in-trade and should be treated as Plant?'2. The assessee is a private limited company. During the course of assessment proceedings, it claimed 100 per cent depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act on bottles and crates treating these as Plant used in business of manufacture of soft drinks run by the assessee company all along in the past had (sic) been treating bottles and crates as stock-in-trade. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the appellant is entitled to 100 per cent depreciation on crates and bottles as each of items is in the nature of Plant and such of items is less than Rs...
Anurag Roadlines Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: (2007)8VST618(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. The present revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated December 15, 2004 arising from Appeal No. 772 of 2004 relating to the proceedings under Section 13A(6) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that the driver of Vehicle Nos. CPV-6877 and MP-19-D-6139 presented papers for issuing trip sheet at Ambabai check-post. On inquiry, it was found that those trucks were carrying supari, but it is alleged that the papers were not found to be genuine. Therefore, notice Nos. 728 and 729 dated October 13, 2004 were issued. In respect of truck No. 6877, prayer was made for issuing trip sheet for 31, 34 and 35 bags of supari besides other goods to be transported vide bilty Nos. 6697, 6698 and 6699 from Gwalior to Chhatarpur. For these bags, bill No. 2910 dated October 12, 2004 of M/s. Bansal Kirana Bhandar, Dal Bazar, Mainawali-gali, Gwalior, bill No. 1258 dated October 12, 20...
Sushila Pulp and Papers Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC168; [2005]124CompCas281(All); [2005]62SCL502(All)
Vikram Nath, J.1. This special appeal has been filed by M/s. Sushila Pulp and Papers Ltd., through its managing director Sri Girdhari Lal Tiwari praying for setting aside the order dated December 17, 2003, passed by the learned single judge in Misc. Application No. 119592 of 2002 arising out of Misc. Company Application No. 3 of 2000, whereby the plant and machinery of the company in liquidation has been auctioned in favour of M/s. S. S. Metals (respondent No. 4) and the sale was confirmed under rule 272 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.2. M/s. Sushila Pulp and Papers Ltd. a company incorporated in 1991 under the Companies Act, 1956, was set up for manufacturing of paper. Soon after it started production it faced problems and is lying closed since 1993 and has not been doing any business since then. It was directed to be wound up by order of the company judge dated November 1, 2001, pursuant to the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, made under ...
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR834]; (2005)IILLJ245All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated February 5, 1983 passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 122 of 1989. The aforesaid award was enforced by publication on the notice board of the Labour Court under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on July 12, 1993.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is claimed that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag is an Educational Institution/University and the examinations conducted by the Society are recognised by the Government of India as well as various, Universities of the Country. Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been appointed on the post of Clerk in the year 1969 by the petitioner in the Examination Department. He issued a charge-sheet on October 31, 1987 and was dismissed from employment for indulging in major misc...
Smt. Awadh Raj and anr. Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1827
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1981 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No. 199 of 1978 arising out of Original Suit No. 13 of 1978.2. I have heard Shri H.S. Jain for the appellants and Shri H.G.S. Parihar for the respondents.PLEADINGS3. Smt. Ram Rati, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell the land in suit executed by Sant Bux Singh, the defendant No. 1 in her favour impleading Smt. Awadhraj and Lalta Prasad Singh, the subsequent purchasers of the land in suit by a registered sale deed executed by Sant Bux Singh, the defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that in January, 1978, the defendant No. 1 Sant Bux Singh agreed to sell the land in suit in consideration of Rs. 6,000 after receiving Rs. 1,000 as advance of the sale consideration. The rest of the sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. An agreement to sell ...
Jagjiwan Prasad (D.) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Babu (D.) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1834
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is second civil appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.5.1979, passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1977, Smt. Ram Dulari v. Jagjiwan Prasad and Ors..2. I have heard Shri P. L. Mishra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Smt. Ram Dulari.PLEADINGS3. Plaintiff Jagjiwan Prasad filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.12.1973. Babu, the defendant No. 1 filed his written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that on 16.4.1974, the defendant No. 1 illegally executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Kamla wife of Bhagauti Prasad and Smt. Ram Dulari wife of Basdeo. Thereafter, the plaintiff impleaded Smt. Kamla and Smt. Ram Dulari as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as subsequent purchasers. Both the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement. After filing the written stateme...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.C. Bhatia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(All)384; [2006]287ITR356(All)
1. The Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law for the asst. yr. 1979-80 under Section 256(1) of the IT 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 assessee could be termed as an industrial undertaking entitled for the deduction under Section 35B of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts giving rise to the present case are as follows :The assessee-respondent is an exporter and he exported articles made of brass and claimed relief under Section 35B(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. He claimed himself a small-scale exporter. The ITO refused to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee-respondent on the findings that the goods exported by the assessee were not produced in the small-scale undertaking owned by the assessee. The AAC on appeal reversed the findings and held that the goods exported by the assessee were manufactured or produced by the assessee in small-scale undertaking owned by...
Cwt Vs. Mahabir Prasad Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN584(All)
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this court.'Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of his share in value of immovable properties which belonged to the firm of which the assessee is a partner ?'2. The present Reference relates to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a partner in the firm M/s. Agra Steel Corporation, Agra. He claimed exemption in respect of 1/4th share in the building and land appurtenant thereto owned by the firm. The Wealth Tax Officer rejected the claim of exemption on the ground that the building is owned by the firm and not by the respondent-assessee. Feeling aggrieved ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »