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.
Shanti Devi and anr. Vs. Prabhandh Nideshak U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Lt ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)2UPLBEC1601
Vineet Saran, J.1. Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners well as Sri Prabhakar Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2 late Babu Lal, was an employee of the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited. He died in harness on 30.11.2003. Thereafter respondent No. 4 Jitendra alias Munna Yadav, who was the son of the first wife of the deceased-employee late Babu Lal, had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Similarly petitioner No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi the second wife of late Babu Lal also made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 4, Jitendra alias Munna Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 41763 of 2004 with a prayer for a direction to the respondent-Bank to give appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the judgment and order dated 6.10.2004 with the direction that his representation ...
Cit Vs. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: [2005]147TAXMAN622(All)
ORDERBy the Court 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 opinion to this Court.'Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for investment allowance under section 32A(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The present Reference relates to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows :The respondent-assessee is a State Government undertaking. It is engaged in business of construction of bridges etc. It claimed investment allowance which was rejected by the Assessing Authority on the ground that it was not an industrial undertaking where the plant and machinery were installed for the purpose of business of construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing. The order was set aside by the Commissioner...
Cit Vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: [2006]155TAXMAN321(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, in law and on facts of the case, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. was justified in arriving at a conclusion that only net amount paid by the firm to a partner after adjusting interest paid by him to the firm should be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 irrespective of the fact that amount of interest is received by him in a capacity other than a capacity in which he paid interest to the firm or is a partner in the firm ?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1980-81.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:'We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue and Sri R.S. Agrawal, teamed counsel for the respondent.'4. It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties tha...
Cit Vs. Swadeshi Mining and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2005
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN619(All)
By the Court The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad 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 opinion to this Court.'1. Whether in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the decision of the learned CIT(A), holding that the sum of Rs. 38,91,216 realised by the assessee in excess of the sale price fixed by the Government, was not a trading receipt in the assessment year under consideration?2. Whether in law and on facts of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the learned CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessees claim of Rs. 6,27,253 on account of interest on excess collection of levy sugar price?'2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1981-82.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent-assessee is a publi...
Jagmohan Malhotra Vs. Jai Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)ARC561; 2005(2)AWC1812
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By means of the present revision, the applicant has impugned the order-dated 16.9.2004 passed by Addl. District Judge (Court No. 3) Moradabad in SCC Suit No. 8 of 2003 whereby amendment application 40A of the plaintiff respondents was allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- as costs.2. It would appear from the record that the plaintiff respondent instituted a SCC Suit being suit No. 8 of 2003 praying for a decree of eviction of defendants 1 to 3 from the building known as Mishra Building situated at Station Road, Moradabad and for payment of rent of Rs. 1045.12 together with damages at the rate of Rs. 27,750.00 alongwith house tax and water tax. The applicant defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment application came to be filed by plaintiff seeking amendment by adding Para 9 A in the plaint. The amendment application was sought to be dismissed as not pressed on ground that it suffered from some technical mista...
Sheo Kumar Son of Lalu Prajapati Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)AWC2444
Arun Tondon, J.1. Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Vimlesh Kumar Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and 10 to 14 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 18.2. Petitioner, Sheo Kumar, has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17.07.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Naraini, district Banda in case No. 33 of 2002 in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. By means of the said order the Sub Divisional Officer Naraini has held that the names of Sri Shyam Lal son of Laxmi Prasad, Bachoo and Maikoo sons of Ram Das, Badi alias Ram Sikhiya widow of Ram Das, Santosh and Sant Ram sons of Ram Kumar residents of village Bhakhuri are to be recorded in the relevant revenue records in compliance of the order dated 07.01.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi which has since been affirmed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad by order dated 20th May, 1997.3. On behalf of the petitione...
Sobren Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2028
ORDERAmar Saran, J.1. Heard Sri J.S. Sengar, assisted by Sri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing charge-sheet No. 61-B of 1998, dated 25-8-1998, in Crime No. 80-B of 1991 under Sections 395, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPS, PS Jaitpur, District Agra, and the consequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid case pending in the Court of Spl. Judge (DAA), Agra, in SST No. 23 of 2000: State v. Sobaran Singh and Ors.. The aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted in consequence of an investigation conducted by the police of PS Jaitpur in pursuance of an order dated 6-2-1992, which was passed on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 4-2-1992.3. The allegations in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. were that the applicants and one Jagdish attacked the h...
Mool Chandra and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2013
ORDERAmar Saran, J.1. This application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. and the order dated 12-3-2001 passed by the Additional City Magistrate (First), Allahabad directing the applicants to remove the encroachments from the lane and drain at the south of their house within fifteen days in proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. and the order dated 22-1-2002 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11 dismissing the criminal revision against the aforesaid order dated 12-3-2001.2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P.C. which have been initiated by opposite party No. 2 are an abuse of process of Court because they pertain to the same encroachment, which was subject-matter of civil suit No. 477 of 2000 (Lal Bahadur v. Mool Chandra), which was pending before the third Civil Judge (Junior Division), Allahabad.3. In this case a spot insp...
R.K. Arya Cold Storage and General Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(All)536
1. The Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the plant and machinery of its cold storage ?2. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned Counsel for the assessee and Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.3. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1982-83.4. The applicant owns a cold storage. It has claimed investment allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act. The claim has been disallowed by the assessing authority, which order has been upheld upto the stage of the Tribunal. In view of the decision of this Court [sic-the Supreme Court] in Delhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1991]191ITR656(SC) , the cold storage is not entitled for in...
R.K. Arya Cold Storage and General Mills Vs. Cit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(All)536; [2005]148TAXMAN467(All)
ORDER1. The 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.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the plant and machinery of its cold storage'.2. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned Standing counsel for the revenue.3. The reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83.4. The applicant owns a Cold Storage. It has claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The claim has been disallowed by the assessing authority, which order has been upheld up to the stage of the Tribunal. In view of the decision of this court in Delhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd v. CIT : [1991]191ITR656(SC) the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »