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.
Shyam Kunwar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1525; 2005(2)ESC901; (2005)2UPLBEC1799
S.U. Khan, J.1. Fisheries lease in respect of a pond comprised in plot No. 290 area 1.137 hectares situate in village Surhurpur, Tappa-Haveli, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau was granted by Deputy Collector in favour of respondent No. 4-Chhotkun for only Rs. 2,000/- per year and that also without any advertisement or auction. There are several authorities of this Court (op. cit) to the effect that fisheries lease shall be granted only and only through auction, and that auction cannot be confined to members of any particular caste, society or group of professionals (Machhuva Samudai). In the aforesaid authorities it has also been held that fisheries lease cannot be renewed and after expiry of fisheries lease fresh auction/re-auction shall take place. Like the present case, I have found that in several cases fisheries leases are being settled without any auction and just on the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar or resolution of Gaoh Sabha and that also for hi...
Duryodhan Lal Jatav Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)ESC1067; (2005)2UPLBEC1821
Sunil Ambwani, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders, dated 12.10.2004 and 10.12.2004, passed by the Superintendent of Police (Adhisthan), Abhisuchana Mukhyalay, Lucknow by which a sum of Rs. 89,410/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner towards the erroneous grant of promotional pay scale as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial). By an order, dated 21st July, 2000, passed by the Superintendent of Police (Regional), Vigilance, Agra, the petitioner, serving as 'Z.O. Staff, Agra', was promoted as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), with effect from 14.8.1995. This order was passed after reviewing the earlier decision made for promotion. By order, dated 7th August, 2004, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion with effect from 14.8.1995 and that, in fact, the petitioner w...
Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(All)170; [2005]275ITR496(All)
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The 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 the opinions of this court :'Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of (i) Rs. 1,93,183 in biri account (ii) Rs. 5,16,279 in wrapper, label and labelling account, Rs. 2,00,850 in tobacco account and Rs. 1,50,000 cash credit in the name of Vishwanath Singh on the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory provision regarding recording of reasons before admitting new evidence at the appellate stage and also on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the Income-tax Officer to rebut the evidence ?'2. Briefly stated the facts in the present case are as follows : 3. The matter relates to the assess...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)73; [2005]275ITR277(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no profit be charged under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the sale of assets, the written down value of which was not ascertainable, instead of the written down value of the remaining block of assets be reduced by the amount of sale receipts ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :3. The respondent-assessee is a public limited company. During the assessment year in question it had sold certain items of old machinery and a few other items of furniture and fittings, etc. It had claimed that the written down value of these assets is not ascertainable. In t...
The Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Comilla Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(All)184
Prakash Krishna, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under the Estate Duty Act for opinion to this Court. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were correct in law in holding that the deduction of Rs. 3.75.000/- being provision for the marriage, maintenance and education of the female members of the family was correctly allowed in computing the value of the assets of the HUF of M/s N.N. Mohan & Sons for the purpose of determining the deceased's share and the share of toe lineal descendants?'2. The respondent is an accountable person and filed return of estate duty under the Estate Duty Act. The deceased had a share in the property, belonging to the HUF of M/s H.N. Mohan & Sons (bigger HUF). The original assessment under the Estate Duty was completed on 20th April, 1974 on the estate valuing Rs. 31,87,565/-. However, on the objections being raised by the internal audit party...
Cit Vs. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(All)70
By the Court:The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no profit be charged under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the sale of assets, the WDV of which was not ascertainable, instead of the WDV of, the remaining block of assets be reduced by the amount of sale receipts?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows :3. The respondent- assessee is a public limited company. During the assessment year in question it had sold certain items of old machinery and a few other items of furniture and fittings, etc. It had claimed that the written down value of these assets is not ascertainable, In the course of the assessment, the assessing officer noted tha...
Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs. Trade Tax ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST370(All)
Rajes Kumar, J.1. These six revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated March 30, 1996 relating to the assessment years 1987-88, 198-89 and 1989-90. Revision Nos. 915, 916 and 917 of 1996 have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.2. Dealer is a company, constituted under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a Government of India Corporation, working under the Ministry of Commerce, Union of India, New Delhi, and engaged in the business of importing minerals from outside the country and selling the same. For the assessment years in dispute dealer claimed to have imported and sold copper rods, nickels, lead, zinc, etc. For the aforesaid assessment years assessing authority passed the assessment orders under Rule 41(7) and levied the tax on the turnover of the aforesaid goods at 2.2 per cent treating them as 'metal'. Assessment orders for the assessment year 1987-88 was passed on ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Executive Officer, Na ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)AWC1156; 2005(2)ESC834; (2005)1UPLBEC920
A.K. Yog and K.N. Ojha, JJ.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate representing Life Insurance Corporation of India/Petitioner, Sri Q.H. Siddiqui, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the leading case and all other Counsels appearing in connected cases. Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as petitioner has filed all the above petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging orders/actions of the respondent Nagar Nigams, Nagar Palika Parishad impleaded as respondents called Local Bodies seeking to recover Licence Fee from LIC on the basis of entry 'Insurance Company' in the Schedule attached to G.O. dated 16.12.97 and consequential Notifications on that basis.2. It is admitted at the bar that all the petitions under somewhat similar facts raises common question of law and on that basis, learned Counsels for the parties in the above cases agreed that all the petitions be decided to...
Ramakant Mishra Vs. Surendra Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC573; 2005(2)AWC1532
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 23rd August 2004 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 30th October, 2004 passed by the In-charge District Judge, Varanasi in R.C.R. No. 27 of 2004. The petitioner, Ramakant Mishra, who claims to be occupant of the accommodation in question, is aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 23rd August 2004 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, declared the accommodation in the possession of Ramakant Mishra i.e. House No. D-34/190, Mohalla Ganesh Mahal Dashaswamedh, Varanasi to be vacant and directed the vacancy to be notified in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Rent Control And Eviction Officer the petitioner filed Revision No. 27 of 2004 before the District Judge.3. I will first dealt with the ...
Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(All)515; [2005]276ITR38(All)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion to this court :'Whether in view of the fact that the additions towards unexplained deposits have been made by treating the transactions as non-genuine and as such by implication the deposits have been treated to have been made by the applicant and in these circumstances on the consideration of the entries of deposits and payment the peak amount should only be added '2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as under :4. During the assessment year in question certain amount of cash credits standing in the names of various persons were added in the income of the applicant by invoking the provision of Section 68 of the Act. Before the Tribunal the alternative plea was taken by the applicant that in the event deposit/cash...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »